fe s BSE3 i o5 
Book— 'H^ 



OUTLINES OF 
TEXTUAL CRITICISM 

APPLIED TO THE 

NEW TESTAMENT 



HAMMOND 



HENRY FROWDE, M.A. 

PUBLISHER TO THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD 
LONDON, EDINBURGH 
NEW YORK 



OUTLINES OF 

TEXTUAL CRITICISM 



APPLIED TO THE 



NEW TESTAMENT 



By C. E. HAMMOND, M.A. 
ft 

LATE FELLOW AND TUTOR OF EXETER COLLEGE, OXFORD 
VICAR OF MENHENIOT, CORNWALL, AND HON. CANON OF TRFKO 



SIXTH EDITION, REVISED 




OXFORD 
AT THE CLARENDON PRESS 

M DCCCC II 




ox 

OXFORD 

PRINTED AT THE CLARENDON PRESS 
BY HORACE HART, M.A. 
PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY 



PREFACE 



TO THE SIXTH EDITION 

THIS book was the outcome of a course of Lectures 
given to a class of Greek Testament pupils now some 
thirty years ago. The fact that a sixth edition is 
called for seems to show that the writer's object has 
been fairly attained. That object was two-fold : first, 
to explain to ordinary students of the Greek Testament 
the elementary facts about the Text, and some of the 
problems which an intelligent reader must encounter. 
And then, in case any should be attracted to go deeper 
into the science of Textual Criticism, to give some 
guidance as to first principles, and to point out some 
books which may help them to pursue their studies. 

This sixth edition is to a large extent rewritten. 
Discoveries have been made and problems have been 
investigated in the last ten years, which put the study 
of Textual Criticism for the New Testament on 
a different footing from that which it occupied 
previously. The number of books too dealing with 
the subject, or with parts of it, is largely increased. 
For the purpose of this edition I have consulted the 
following books. It is impossible on each occasion to 



vi 



PREFACE 



make a specific acknowledgment of indebtedness. 
I desire to express here once for all my obligations 
generally. 

Scrivener's Introduction to the Criticism of the N.T. 
(4th ed., revised by Rev. E. Miller.) 

Nestle's Textual Criticism of the Greek Test. (Eng. 
Translation.) 

Some Criticism of the Text of the New Test. (Dr. 
Salmon.) 

Philology of the Gospels. (Blass.) 

The Revision Revised. (Dean Burgon.) 

The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels ; Causes of 
Corruption in the Traditional Text. (Burgon and Miller.) 

The Gospel according to S. Mark. (Dr. H. B. Swete.) 

Hastings' Diet, of the Bible ; The Church Quarterly 
Review ; Texts and Studies ; Studia Biblica. (Various 
Articles and Papers.) 

The ' Oxford Debate ' on Textual Criticism. 

Some statements will be found repeated in different 
parts of the book. This is almost inevitable when the 
same fact has to be presented in its different bearings; 
and it will, I hope, be pardoned by students who are 
not yet familiar with the points. 

I have to express my thanks to Dr. Sanday for 
advice and many valuable hints : and for a delightful 
opportunity of quiet work and research to the late 
Mr. Gladstone's admirable and well-equipped provision 
for a student's needs at St. Deiniol's Library and 
Hostel, Hawarden. 

C. E. HAMMOND. 



CONTENTS 



PAGE 

Introduction i 

Chap. I. Early History of the Printed 'Textus Receptus' 13 

Chap. II. On the origin of Various Readings . .17 

Chap. III. On the Manuscripts of the Greek Text. 

§ 1. On the number, mode of designation, &c., of MSS. . 31 

§ 2. On Lectionaries 34 

§ 3. On some palseographic details 36 

§ 4. On the various systems of the Divisions of the Text . 37 

§ 5. An account of Codices n and B 42 

Chap. IV. On Versions, and the chief Versions of the New 
Testament. 

§ 1. On the nature and value of the evidence given by 

Versions .54 

§ 2. The Latin Versions 56 

§ 3. The Syriac Versions 61 

§ 4. The Egyptian Versions 67 

§ 5. The Gothic Version 69 

§ 6. The ^Ethiopic Version 70 

§ 7. The Armenian Version 71 

Chap. V. On Patristic Quotations 72 

Chap. VI. Discussion of the Evidence derived from the fore- 
going Sources. 
§ 1. Summary of results reached so far .... 78 
§ 2. Versions and Patristic Writings must be used cau- 
tiously 79 

§ 3. MSS., though independent of each other, are marked 

off by general features into groups . . . .81 
§ 4. Three main groups commonly recognized by Critics . 83 
§ 5. The Western Text 85 



viii 



CONTENTS 



PAGE 

§ 6. Examples of the proofs that the smaller group of 

witnesses contains the earlier type of Text . . 87 

§ 7. An order traceable among the various documentary 

witnesses 96 

Chap. VII. Historical Considerations .... 98 

Appendix A. On Canons of Criticism 105 

Appendix B. Critical discussion of some additional disputed 
Passages. 

1. 1 S. John v. 7, 8 113 

2. S. John vii. S. 115 

3. S. John vii. 53 — viii. 11 116 

4. 1 Tim. iii. 16 118 

5. S. John v. 3, 4 122 

6. S. Luke xxii. 43, 44 123 

7. S. Matt. xxi. 28-31 125 

8. Acts xx. 28 127 

9. Acts xi. 20 130 

10. S. Mark xvi. 9-20 . -131 

Appendix C. List of Greek Uncial Codices . . . .141 

Appendix D. List of the chief Latin Codices . . . .154 

Appendix E. List of Patristic Writers, with Dates, &c. . .163 

Appendix F. Table I. The Uncial iVuthorities for different parts 

of the New Testament chronologically arranged . . 172 

Table II. Contents of those MSS. which are 
designated by the same letters in different parts of the 
New Testament 173 

Index I. Passages of the New Testament referred to in the 

Work 1 74 

Index II. General 176 

Facsimiles. (Frcm Helps to the Study of the Bible.) 



No. I. 



C I N GTCO N € R M M K~ 

X f T *ft 1 X e '^° w "TO c Kfff 
1 ^epcu^e-roycrVptu 

T OY6l C cyNT€A€f*.N 
p M M kTO C K*V f> CTOM^ 

•fife |*€MioY H re }f 6N 
KcVon^eY»MKKyf o y 

e k Hp y i eiN 6 a^H X h & M \. 

. A€ t X X YT 'O Y KJA*£ M X XIX 

r f x n Tcb-N xe'rajxr 

e a e re » 6 g xc I Aeyc n«f 
•jc o> m. ky poce M ex n ex* 

"i C N t \C f AGXTH CO t K-Jf 
M CN H CO KYflOCTO fie 

r x h x kc 6 y4> I CT6 CKKI 

fe C H M H N eVl M O .IO I fco 
£ f4 f.e P O Y C X \ M M TH€M 

t h V o t Y A A I X e rr I c e crfr 

wt'o y ^ e^"*^ K^TTOf 
m e-r x yXo y~ K ^ 1 * gx« 
g i c-r m vi i e poycxx m m 

THNeNTH fo^AMAOl» 
^OMe'l TCDTON OIKO KTRf 

KY to y * c T K * * o yttoc 

O KCO KxVxCKHMtyCX* 
£ N V £ p O Y c >- Aw H M'O COl 

6'\ KoyciH.8oHeiTa)«> 
^YTOJOi€MT<i>Tpnu) 
£ y T o y © n X f y c » 

c € o i > i • M e 4 ( n rc ax 

KT H M UJ N C YH-^O t C\AA 

AO J CTO I c.KA."Tf Y>:xc 
n f ocTeoelMejjqtceic 
-rote p o M-ro y KYToc w i , 

€ r O Y r A A H MTCX I KXTATM 

c x n -re co f a> * » <R Y*°' 
TtuN rt XXf id^NTH c ioy^j, 

i Esdras ii. i-8, from Cod. Vaticanus (B). There is no 
separation between the words, no capital letters, and only 
a fine stroke (e.g. between the second and third letters of 
line 2), with a marginal indication, to mark where a new 
paragraph begins. The accents are due to the third cor- 
rector (see p. 50). 



No. II. 



KXlAOOHTCDCMMr 
MAKMHAOinHe 
I !» M € A I A K AIT YNI I. 
H AN ApCCH >S1 
AC I K AC I A6YC6 1 A M 

ti acti n kai h pece 
Tcu i ac i aci Ton p a 
tm AKAienoiHce 

oytcdg; 

kai ANepcpnroc.HN 

lOY^AlOC^NJCOY 

coicTHnoAeiKAi 

ONOMAAYTCDMAF 
^OXXIO COTOY J A' I 

roYTXJYceMceior' 
JOYKcicAiOYeK 
cbyAHCKeNiAMef 
OCHNAI XMAXU) 
TOceillHAM'HN 
H X M A \Ci:>T€YC€N 
HARoyXOAONO 
cof K ACI A6YCK A 
RYAtDNOCKMHN 

royruji i Aicepe 

HTH6YI "ATHPAMf 
N AAA&AAeA&oy 
I I ATpCCAYTOYKXl 
TOO NOMA X yTH C 

M fcTAA AAXAJ AY 

TH cto ycno n e I c 
en e AeyceN ayth«m^ 

GAYT^uei CFYM XI 
KXKAI H NTDKOpx 
ClONK AAH 1XO eiJtf iK-jjkir 
KAI OT6H KOYceH7;.£! 
T"07r>ygxciAC<J^c 1 
rrPOCTXrM AcyNN 

XOHCANTHNIIO 
XI NJ Y ri OX6 1 pATAjT- 

Esther ii. 3-8, from Cod. Sinaiticus (X). Here the text 
is broken into paragraphs. See where the first letter stands 
out a little from the line, as in line 10. Notice also the cor- 
rections added in the margin near the bottom of the column, 
and the sign of an omission, line 2 from bottom. 



No. IV. 



Cl ft. j^dLr^-rcL}/ T S\J1 d-p feu <fe- gfqfoli 
R.NA.t?ry YI f V ° cro pjp h ^J-^oo \x}j±\ oimu foca* coc 

^Ljfif ot^.' 1^ el^ -Q Gu o p c£*<5lu o &£{GfUo ucn 
6tmX 6-u U-oi c .b-cir^&2 o \*&Y ° * ft" 
y cju -rrp o rrH is ^V-** . It cu £y ^ 

LTTH^-li-cf pot pjjj ^i-xi'Uyuuefc* Xfc' 

otoicroo* KcLi »QGc opgC»ro't^fH 
<£ro n-atj.is 04 o u « &£ 6M (c fert * 

Qrrl o la-ln-oro u p o crtSqH , X^^cU-rroo' 
U p t • (Xcru 6-uxlcn3J3^ijD-* dULrrori. 
Q^U&^tSi 1 teto u ctJLrro"bi 6~6^Jil? etc ,Llc£>/u> 
cArro^ipoo* A.6^dUnrH 6 fc* 

dLUTOO ' p pi » n Q UJJ l.O 

CtJ luuu* o LTOJTX5 ^? o dL^J d.n ^t llJa -U ^ 
^^ocro^-rrpdj^Lotj* «i tup&uou fe" 

S. John xx. 11-17, from a Minuscule MS., Evan. 575 
(Scrivener), cent, ix or x, which has the fce<pa\.aia majora, 
the tlt\oi, the Ammonian Sections,, and Eusebian Canons,; 
also the proper Lections are indicated in the margin. Note 
the abbreviatoin for re'Aos (see p. 27) in the first line. 



INTRODUCTION 



Comparative Criticism, as applied to the New Testament, 
may be denned as the Science which determines the mutual 
relations and values of the various authorities from which are 
to be ascertained as nearly as possible the actual words of the 
New Testament writers. Its office is to indicate the limits 
within which the truth is to be found ; to select the witnesses 
most likely to speak the truth ; and then, by cross-examining 
them, and comparing their testimony, to determine what is 
most probably the true text. 

There are three sources of evidence, viz. : — 

1. A very large number of Manuscripts of the Greek 
Text ; some containing the whole, but most containing parts 
only, and some mere fragments, of the books which we now 
call collectively ' The New Testament ' ; written at various 
times from the fourth to the fifteenth centuries inclusive, and 
in all possible states of preservation. 

2. Versions, or translations of the Books of the New 
Testament into other languages than Greek. Those only 
are of value for critical purposes which were made between 
the second and seventh centuries. This class of evidence is 
particularly valuable, as will be seen hereafter, in questions 
concerning the early existence and prevalence of certain 
various readings. 

3. Quotations in the works of the ecclesiastical writers 
of the first five centuries, which, used cautiously and under 
conditions that will be explained hereafter (see Chap. V 
and VI, § 2), may be made to yield evidence of essential 
value. 




2 



INTRODUCTION 



Conjectural Emendation, which is sometimes of necessity 
exercised on the text of secular writers, has practically no 
place in the criticism of the text of the New Testament. 
Not that there is any essential difference between textual 
criticism applied to the New Testament and textual criticism 
applied to secular writings. Indeed some critics, as Nestle 
(pp. 167-170), approve of conjecture in the last resort; and 
Blass ('Philology of the Gospels/ p. 67) thinks it justifiable 
in exceptional cases; and even Scrivener (Introd. ii. 
pp. 244, 245) seems disposed to think there are a few 
passages on which it might possibly throw light. Yet, 
speaking generally, with the abundance of material at hand 
the task is to select rather than to invent. Whereas some 
of the classical texts rest upon a single late MS., we have for 
the text of the New Testament more than 3,000 manuscript 
documents, including some of very early date. Whereas 
translations into Latin are among the most trustworthy 
sources of information as to the text of some parts of Plato 
and Aristotle, we have no fewer than eleven versions of the 
New Testament a , each possessing a distinct critical value. 
Lastly, the quotations are manifold for most of the important 
passages. Thus we have a threefold cord of evidence, each 
strand of which is composed of many threads. 

For dealing with this mass of material the English student 

has before him the choice of two conflicting methods. Of 

one the late Dean Burgon and Prebendary E. Miller are the 

chief exponents : the other is adopted by most other living 

critics, both in England and on the Continent. As an 

example of this latter method, Westcott and Hort's text and 

brilliant Introduction expounding the principles on which 

A sort of parallel to this is found in the sacred literature of the 
Buddhists. The Sanscrit originals of their sacred books have been 
translated into Thibetan, Mongolian, Chinese, and Mantschu; and the 
Pali (Ceylon) originals into the languages of Burma and Siam. (Max 
Miiller's ' Chips from a German Workshop,' vol. i. pp. 193-5.) 



INTRODUCTION 



3 



that text was framed, first published in 1881, though open to 
criticism in some of its parts and not accepted as a final 
recension of the text, remains the most complete and 
thorough-going exposition of a system of constructive critical 
work. New discoveries and further investigation are causing 
their conclusions to be modified here and there : their general 
line of reasoning cannot be neglected. 

In endeavouring to explain these two methods some 
statements must be assumed which will be justified later on. 
For instance, all are agreed that a text founded on the oldest 
authorities would differ very decidedly in character from 
a text founded on the later authorities : also that a text of 
the latter type had emerged and acquired permanent ex- 
pression during the fourth century : and that it is fairly 
represented by the so-called { Textus Receptus ' of the 
ordinary unrevised Greek Testament. This is allowed by 
both. The opposition of the two schools is shown most 
acutely in their different ways of accounting for this fact, 
and generally in their treatment of the evidence belonging 
to the first four centuries. 

I. The two methods of criticism then start from opposite 
points. Critics of the ' Traditional ' school proceed on the 
assumption that this type of text, which they call ' The 
Traditional Text/ must have been handed down with but 
little change from the beginning ; and if by human error or 
carelessness it was here and there corrupted, it has been on 
the whole purged again. This is clear, they say, from the 
early witness of Versions and Patristic Writings, and from 
the manner in which the text finds much and increasing 
MS. testimony from the fifth century onwards: and it is their 
way of accounting for the difficulty that no very early MSS. 
of this type survive. They must have existed, but during the 
early period MSS. were written on papyrus, a perishable 
material, and therefore have disappeared. 

B 2 



4 



INTRODUCTION 



Connected with this is another difference. The theory 
of the Traditional Text requires the assumption of a special 
divine superintendence interposing through the action of 
the Church to preserve a succession of copies pure from any 
great corruption, and existing in predominance all down the 
Church's history. 'It can hardly be conceived that the Holy 
Ghost, after communicating His inspiration in the composition 
of books, would in the midst of His overruling care have 
allowed those books to be varied according to changing 
winds of human opinion and human action, without the 
maintenance throughout of a form mainly at least free from 
error ' (Miller, * Textual Guide/ p. 66). This is not to be 
taken to mean that there were any formal revisions of the 
text : it was a silent action and a spiritual instinct. 

As a sort of corollary from this we find a striking difference 
in their estimate of the value of the early texts of B, and 
other MSS. of similar character. The characteristic variations 
of these from the Traditional type are attributed to heretical 
tendencies and human perversity, or worse : and the epithets 
' corrupt/ ' licentious/ and ' foul/ are specimens of Dean 
Burgon's usual way of referring to them. 

Accordingly, the method of this School is to take the 
Textus Receptus as the basis for revision, and to alter only 
those readings which are condemned as not ' grounded upon 
an exhaustive view of the evidence of Greek copies in 
manuscript in the first place ; and, in all cases where they 
differ so as to afford doubt, of versions or translations into 
other languages, and of quotations from the New Testament 
made by Fathers and other early writers.' This is the first 
canon laid down by Prebendary Miller. An outline of this 
system is conveniently given in the Preface to the account 
of the ' Oxford Debate.' It is more fully described and 
illustrated in the two books, ' The Traditional Text ' and 
' Causes of Corruption/ by Burgon and Miller, published by 



INTRODUCTION 



5 



Bell & Sons in 1896. They claim that the result of their 
method 1 will represent the text which issued from the pens 
of the writers of the New Testament and was used all over 
the Church ; and which after contracting corruption to a large 
extent, perhaps in most places, was gradually purged in 
the main as years went on, though something is left still to 
be done/ 

It is not the purpose of this book to criticize this method 
in detail, but a few words may be said here about the above- 
mentioned theological assumption. Is there any reason to 
suppose that God's providence would interfere to specially 
protect the text from textual errors, except so far as the 
Deposit of Faith might be endangered? But there is not 
the faintest shadow of well-founded suspicion that any one 
of the 150,000 variations now registered touches a single 
point of this. The Deposit of Faith is not built up on a few 
texts of Scripture, but on the witness of the Church. And 
as to the ' exquisite appropriateness' of this or that expression, 
which may happen to be displaced by the adoption of a various 
reading, whoever is convinced that the adopted reading is 
the right one will easily find that it has a more special 
appropriateness than the one displaced. Prebendary Miller 
adduces the action of the Church in the formation of the 
canon of Scripture : but the cases are not really parallel. 
In the formation of the canon the diffused consciousness of 
the Church issued in formal decrees approving certain lists 
of books. To make the case of the true text parallel there 
should be some definite revision or recensions, which the 
Church should approve by a formal decree. But it is a strong 
point with Mr. Miller that there is no record of any such 
revision. In fact we should rather describe the growth and 
dissemination of the text as 'unconscious diffusion/ On 
the other hand, this action of the Church does come in to 
guarantee the canonicity of certain passages whose authorship 



6 



INTRODUCTION 



textual criticism leads us to doubt. For instance, the 
Story of the Woman taken in Adultery, the Bloody Sweat, 
the last verses of S. Mark's Gospel, are undoubtedly to be 
held part of the text of Holy Scripture, though we may doubt 
whether S. John, S. Luke, and S. Mark are respectively the 
authors of those passages. We accept Scripture as inspired, 
and use it as such, not because it has proceeded from such 
and such authors, but because it has been so accepted by the 
Church. 

Further, we have a significant object-lesson of God's way 
of dealing with similar textual problems in the case of the 
Old Testament. The present Massoretic Hebrew text is 
the product of a definite revision of the previously existing 
text, and has ever since been preserved from almost any 
variation with religiously scrupulous care. It is the Textus 
Receptus of the Old Testament. Yet the variations of the 
Samaritan Pentateuch and of the LXX from the Hebrew 
text show that in early times there must have been con- 
siderable textual differences. But the New Testament writers, 
and apparently our Lord Himself (if He is reported correctly) 
quoted from the LXX version, which was, as we know, at 
that time the household Bible for most of the Jewish people. 
It is true they sometimes correct the quotation from the 
Hebrew, but sometimes also they draw a conclusion from 
the words of the LXX where these differ from the Hebrew 
(e.g. Acts xv. 1 6, 17). Does not this lead to the following 
difficulty? Doubtless the New Testament writers used the 
LXX both because they were writing in Greek, and because 
it was more familiar than the Hebrew to their readers and 
hearers; but, if the Massoretic were the correct text, they 
were using a less correct text under the inspiration of the 
Holy Ghost: or, if the LXX had the correct text, then 
the Textus Receptus, consecrated by all the care and learning 
of the Jewish authorities, is the less correct one ! If God 



INTRODUCTION 



7 



allowed this textual uncertainty in the case of the Old 
Testament, why should we assume a different law of action 
for another portion of His Word ? 

II. Critics of the other School start from the other end. 
They would deny that the Textus Receptus has any particular 
claim to respect from being 'in possession/ They would 
hold that the fact of its having become the currently adopted 
text may be accounted for on ordinary textual and 
historical grounds without assuming for it any special divine 
sanction. 

Westcott and Hort's system being the most completely 
worked out example of the method of this School, a very 
brief account of it may be here given. Many subordinate 
steps in the argument are necessarily left out, especially 
those which deal with subjective considerations. 

(i) MSS. being examined are observed to fall into three 
main groups (see below, p. 83). (2) The next step is to 
ascertain, if possible, the origin and relative order of these 
groups. The first clue is found by noticing that in the 
larger group passages occur which combine the readings 
of the other two groups — ' conflate readings/ as they are 
called. Now it is more according to the observed habits 
of scribes to combine two readings than to omit part of 
a long reading. Hence a first presumption arises that the 
larger group is later than the other two. (3) This is cor- 
roborated by the evidence of Patristic writings; for the 
writers previous to about a. d. 250 supply many examples 
of the texts of the two former groups separately, but no 
distinctive readings of the third group, which however are 
found in Chrysostom and later writers. Hort further believes 
that this third text was formed from that of the other groups 
by a double revision, made probably at Antioch between 
a.d. 250 and 350. (4) The Western group rapidly dis- 
appears after the fourth century in the Greek and Syriac 



8 



INTRODUCTION 



speaking Churches, though sporadic readings are found 
embedded in a few MSS. Where the Latin versions cir- 
culated it held its ground longer. Even when it was super- 
seded by S. Jerome's Vulgate, mixed readings were often 
introduced. But it was evidently ruled out as not repre- 
senting the true text. It is scarcely quoted by writers after 
the fourth century. (5) The remaining group may be sub- 
divided. One section of it is marked by readings neither 
Syrian nor Western, yet apparently not primitive, which are 
found in Origen and Cyril of Alexandria and in the Bohairic 
Version, and which may be called ' Alexandrian.' (6) The 
remaining very small section contains a text which Hort 
calls £ Neutral,' because its readings are not characteristic 
of either of the other groups. He believes this to be most 
nearly the original text. It should be added that Dr. Salmon 
would call this sub-division ' Early Alexandrian/ and thinks 
it does not carry the text back beyond the middle of the 
third century. Hort's assumption that there were definite 
revisions of the text at Antioch in the third or fourth century, 
after which copies were multiplied under ordinary human 
conditions, is his hypothesis to account for the fact that 
MSS. of one type predominate so greatly over those 
of the other from the fifth century onwards. Burgon and 
Miller's counter-hypothesis is that the ' Traditional Text ' 
must have existed from the beginning, and was on the whole 
kept pure throughout its course by the action of the Church 
under God's overruling providence. Both are hypotheses: 
both rest upon a ' must have been.' What Hort meant by 
revision or £ recension ' was obviously a work of like nature 
to that of Origen or Lucian (see Nestle, p. 182, note 2) for 
the Old Testament, and not the grotesque 'Fabulous 
Narrative ' of Burgon's fancy (' Revision Revised/ pp. 
278 ff.). 

Leaving, however, Westcott and Hort, and speaking gene- 



INTRODUCTION 



9 



rally, the principle of this School is to take the materials as 
they stand and to endeavour to treat them historically. This 
means, to discover as far as possible the genealogy of the 
documents, when and where they were produced, under what 
circumstances, and how they are related to other documents, 
and so forth. Every item of evidence is to be taken into 
account and weighed, every MS. is to be collated at 
least sufficiently to assess its value; if it has any singular 
readings they are to be noted, as possibly giving valuable 
information ; for important clues are often found in the 
character of the variants, and in the reasons which may 
be assigned for them. 

But mere numbers of similar witnesses are held of small 
account. There is of course the important underlying 
question to be answered, Why so many witnesses utter 
so consentient a voice ? This, however, being once decided, 
if it be found that circumstances are such that they cannot 
help speaking with the same voice, it is of small consequence 
what proportion the majority bears to the minority. 

Similarly, the evidence of the Versions and of the Quota- 
tions from the earlier Fathers is to be scrutinized, each under 
their own special conditions. They give valuable corrobora- 
tive help, especially in determining the genealogy and history 
of the different texts that emerge. Here let it be understood 
that the word 'text' is only used thus as a convenient 
symbol for a collection of readings of a particular character. 
No existing MS. is an example of any such text pure 
and simple. But it is found, as a matter of fact, that 
MSS. do fall into three or four groups, those in each group 
representing approximately one type of text (see below, 
pp. 85 ff.). How are these related to each other ? Which 
is nearest to the true text ? How, inasmuch as it is com- 
monly believed that the New Testament ought to embody 
the exact words of the Apostles and Evangelists, did different 



IO 



INTRODUCTION 



representations of their words arise? These are some of 
the questions that have to be answered by a textual 
critic. 

Does Holy Scripture itself give us any hints towards an 
answer? The Preface to S. Luke's Gospel informs us at 
any rate about the origin of that one Gospel. In the first 
place there had been the oral narratives of the eye-witnesses 
of the facts of the Gospel. Then attempts had been made 
by many to put into writing their recollections of these 
narratives. Then S. Luke, having made a careful and 
complete inquiry into the whole matter, determined to write 
a connected account, that his friend Theophilus might have 
full knowledge of the truth. Here it is implied that there 
were in circulation a number of written accounts, more or 
less fragmentary, based on oral teaching. It is also implied 
that these were not all absolutely accurate ; yet they would 
contain much that was true. Is it not likely, as we know the 
conditions of copying and circulating writings in those earliest 
times, chiefly for private use, and before any special character 
of sacredness had grown up around the writings, that words 
and even incidents taken from those other documents would 
be perhaps noted in the margin, and then get incorporated 
in the texts of the copies? Further, to complicate matters 
more, there are very plausible reasons for thinking that 
S. Luke himself put forth two editions of his Gospel and 
Acts, slightly differing from each other. The same suggestion 
has been made about S. John's Gospel, to account for the 
last chapter. One theory about the three Benedictions in 
different places near the end of the Epistle to the Romans, 
and the Doxology found in some MSS. at the end of the 
fourteenth, in others at the end of the sixteenth, chapters, 
is that S. Paul sent out the Epistle in two or more forms. 
All this is rather against the idea that there was a single 
accredited text at the outset, either to start from or to aim at 



INTRODUCTION 



II 



recovering. Such a text as the Western need no longer 
surprise us. Probably all we can hope for from textual 
criticism is that it may lead us to the text that was in most 
repute at the earliest period in the Church's history in which 
comparison and discrimination began to be exercised con- 
sciously upon the various claimant copies that were in circu- 
lation. 

This last remark suggests one more burning question, 
which must be mentioned here, and which is attracting great 
attention among textual critics. What is the origin, history, 
and authority of the so-called ' Western Text ' ? The reader 
will find a short account of the problem below (p. 85). 
There is a more detailed statement in Lake's 'The Text 
of the New Testament,' one of Rivington's ' Oxford Church 
Text Books.' It is a text marked, in comparison with the 
ordinary text, or with the various texts of critical editors, by 
insertions great and small, by omissions, and by a tendency 
to paraphrase. lis history is bound up with Tatian's Diates- 
saron and Marcion's edition of the New Testament ; with 
the question of the origin and date of the Peshitto ; with the 
Synoptic Problem ; and with the theory of a double edition 
by S. Luke himself of his Gospel and of the Acts. Recent 
discoveries and deeper scrutiny of already known materials 
show that, while undoubtedly there were special peculiarities in 
the Western (Latin) section of it, and other special peculiarities 
in the Eastern (Syriac) section, yet texts of this general 
character were known in every part of Christendom in the 
earliest times of which we have knowledge, and sooner or 
later ceased everywhere to be current. Was it formed from 
an original text by free insertion and omission, or was it 
itself the original, and were the later current texts formed 
from it by processes of revision ? 

These points are far from being decided. Both views 
have eminent scholars among their advocates. To discuss 



12 



INTRODUCTION 



them here would be out of proportion, and beyond the scope 
of an elementary Introduction, which is all this book claims 
to be. But to have mentioned the question will show what 
interesting subjects the apparently dry study leads up to, 
and may stimulate some students to advance to deeper and 
wider reading. 



CHAPTER I 



EARLY HISTORY OF THE PRINTED ' TEXTUS RECEPTUS ' 

The New Testament in Greek was not printed till the 
beginning of the sixteenth century. Up to that time it was 
circulated in manuscripts only. A few detached portions 
had been printed earlier ; but the first complete edition was 
that prepared at Alcala in Spain by Cardinal Ximenes, 
forming the fifth volume of the magnificent Triglott edition 
of the whole Bible published by him, and called, from the 
Latin name of the place, The Complutensian. The fifth 
volume was printed in 15 14, and the whole work was com- 
pleted in 15 1 7, a few months only before Cardinal Ximenes' 
death. Some delay occurred after this, and it was not 
published till 1522. Only six hundred copies were printed. 
At that period little was understood of Greek criticism, or 
of the relative value of manuscripts. The Latin version was 
thought to be the truthful standard, and held the place of 
honour on the pages of this edition between the Hebrew and 
the Greek. The particular manuscripts from which the 
Complutensian text is formed have not been identified with 
certainty (see Scriv. Introd. ii. p. 179), but it is clear from the 
character of the text that none were used which do not 
belong to that type which we shall see reason to consider 
of late origin. 

During the preparation of this work, a printer at Basel, 
named Froben, hearing of the Cardinal's design, and wishing 
to anticipate it, prevailed on the well-known scholar, Erasmus, 
to prepare an edition for the press. This was done in great 



i 4 



EARLY HISTORY 



haste; and Erasmus' first edition was published in 1516, 
being thus the first published, though not the first printed, 
Greek text. He had four manuscripts, minuscules, to work 
from, all of which are identified : one of these is of consider- 
able value, but its variations from the others caused him to be 
suspicious of it, and he based his text almost wholly on the 
other three, which are all of the late type a . In the Apoca- 
lypse he boldly retranslated xxii. 16-21 from the Latin, his 
manuscript being defective ; and he interpolated several 
words elsewhere, which exist in no known Greek MS. b (see 
Scriv. Introd. ii. pp. 183, 184). These interpolations, as 
well as Acts viii. 37, for which the only ancient testimony 
is the Latin version, have continued in the ordinary Greek 
text to the present day, and thence hold their place in our 
English translation. Erasmus, however, did not insert the 
verse 1 S. John v. 7 till his third edition. His second edition 
(15 1 9) is of no special importance: it differs from the first 
in having many misprints corrected, which had crept in 
through the haste with which the work was brought out. 
The third edition (1522) is to be remarked as having for the 
first time a few various readings noted in the margin. More 
important, however, to us is the fourth edition (1527), which 
Erasmus corrected, especially in the Apocalypse, by the 
Complutensian, and which became the basis of the Textus 
Receptus. A fifth edition was published (1535), but it 
differed very little from the fourth. 

In 1534 an edition was published by Colinaeus (Simon de 
Colines), the text of which included readings adopted from 
a collation of MSS. ; but it was not appreciated : and then 

8 The only MSS. of a different type known to any of these editors, 
viz D, D 2 , L, 1 j were looked on with suspicion and little used. 

b e. g. K€Komams Kai ov KeKfxrjKas for real ov KCKomaKas, ii. 3 ; eircoai- 
ricrcapfs and £S>vti eh tovs alwvas toov alwvwv, v. 14 ; Kai P\eire, vi. I, 3, 
5, 7 ; ffvvdyci, xiii. 10 ; hwmov tov Opovov rod 0eov, xiv. 5. 



OF THE PRINTED ' TEXTUS RECEPTUS * 



came the editions of Robert Stephen, the third of which and 
the most important is known as the Editio Regia, published 
at Paris in 1550. Its special value depends on the consider- 
able and systematic collection of various readings from fifteen 
fresh manuscripts, including the valuable and ancient Codex 
Bezae (D), and that now known as L, which Stephen added 
in the margin. The influence of prescription already shows 
itself in the fact that Stephen often follows the text of 
Erasmus, in defiance of the authority of his manuscripts. The 
first two editions, of 1546 and 1549, are known as the 
mirificam editions from the opening words of their Preface. 
The Editio Regia differs from them, according to Scrivener, 
in 372 readings, chiefly following Erasmus' fourth edition. 

Beza (15 1 9-1 605) published various editions between 
1556 and 1598. He added a few more various readings 
from other manuscripts ; but he still followed Stephen's text 
closely. 

Later still the Elzevirs brought out their beautifully executed 
editions at Leyden, between 1624 and 1633. The text is 
again little more than a reproduction of Stephen's c ; in fact 
it is asserted by them in the preface to their second edition 
to be ab omnibus receptus : and from this phrase comes the 
designation ' Textus Receptus.' 

From this sketch it will have been seen that our Textus 
Receptus is based upon a very few manuscripts. It is true 
that a number of various readings had been collected ; but 
they were only placed in the margin, and were not used in 
reconstructing the text, except occasionally, and then on no 
fixed principles. The value of various readings was not yet 
appreciated. 

c Stephen's and Elzevir's texts differ in 287 places according to 
Scrivener (ii. 195). Our English version appears to follow sometimes 
Stephen's of 1550 and sometimes Beza's of 1589. See Smith's Diet. 
Bib. vol. ii. p. 524. 



i6 



EARLY HISTORY, ETC. 



We must further bear in mind that the necessity for 
scrupulous accuracy in the work of collation was not yet 
understood ; that the text of the Vulgate was faulty ; that 
no help was sought from Oriental Versions ; nor any atten- 
tion paid to Patristic Quotations. 

Enough has been said to show that no critical value is to 
be assigned to the Textus Receptus. In saying this we by 
no means imply that blame is due to Erasmus, Stephen, or 
Beza, for not being on a level with the critics of the present 
day. Principles of textual criticism could not be worked 
out until materials had been collected : and the collection of 
materials was the work of time and research. These men 
were the pioneers of the advance, and did indispensable 
service. But we must learn not to elevate the text formed 
from their materials into an authority. The facts which we 
are about to discuss will show that while we are warranted 
in refusing any authority to the Textus Receptus, we are led 
with reasonable certainty towards a new text, somewhat 
different from the old one, and with some few points still 
undetermined, but resting on the basis of an infinitely multi- 
plied stock of materials, and supported by a well-understood 
and searching system of criticism. 



CHAPTER II 



ON THE ORIGIN OF VARIOUS READINGS 

It is important that we should try to realize the amount 
of depreciation to which a text is liable under the hands of 
successive copyists. From the very nature of the case it is 
probable that errors should creep in. We know how liable 
printed books are to suffer from typographical errors: they 
have however this advantage, that by due care most of the 
errors will be corrected before the book is published; and 
then all the copies issued will have the same degree of 
correctness. In the case of a manuscript, not only is the 
difficulty of correcting the errors greater, but after all the 
correctness of only one copy is secured. Further, when 
this copy comes to be in its turn an exemplar to be copied, 
its own particular errors will be reproduced ; and the copyist 
will certainly be found to have made fresh errors ; and thus 
at each stage the text will tend to recede more and more 
from the original. The natural conclusion from this is, that 
the text of a manuscript written in the fifteenth century would 
probably differ from the autograph text of the Apostles, 
more widely than a manuscript of the fourth century. Of 
course there is always the possibility that a recent codex may 
be a direct copy from one of great antiquity ; and thus be 
a more trustworthy representative of the original, than one 
made some centuries earlier than itself. Such a claim must 
be proved for every alleged case. 

This conclusion, however, rests on stronger grounds than 
mere presumption. Among all the known MSS. of the 
Greek text, amounting to more than three thousand, only a 
very few can be shown, with any plausibility, to be connected 

HAMMOND Q 



i8 



ON THE ORIGIN OF 



together. There are three pairs of uncials a which seem to 
be related. The minuscules 13, 69, 124, 346, 556, 561, 624, 
788, and possibly others, are called 'the Ferrar group'; the 
common origin of the first four of them having been first 
detected by Mr. Ferrar of Dublin 13 . They all exhibit a peculiar 
text. Two peculiarities are that S. Luke xxii. 43, 44 is found 
after S. Matt. xxvi. 39, and S. John vii. 53 — viii. 11 after 
S. Luke xxi. 38. Several similar groups are suggested by 
Dr. Gregory. But MSS. even thus related, exhibit many 
variations from each other. It is certain then that the com- 
parison of any two MSS. would give rise to a number of 
various readings ; and the number would of course be in- 
creased as more MSS. were compared. The possible sources 
of these variations are not very numerous, and can be easily 
understood by considering the mode in which MSS. were 
transcribed, and the chances to which they were liable during 
the centuries which have since elapsed. 

The majority of the later MSS. were doubtless executed 
in the monasteries, of which the Scriptorium was a regular 
department. But in earlier times they must have been the 
production of the regular professional copyists, who would 
regard their task as a mere piece of business, and would 
bring to it no particular religious feeling nor extraordinary 
pains. Sometimes one scribe would have the exemplar before 
him and copy it singly ; or several scribes might undertake 
different parts of the work. The copy thus taken was sub- 
jected to a careful revision, being recompared with the exem- 
plar, and sometimes a second time with some standard copy. 
The technical words for these processes are respectively 

a viz. Cod. Sangermanensis (E 3 ), a poor transcript of Cod. Claromon- 
tanus (D 2 ) ; and Codd. Boernerianus (G 3 ) and Augiensis (F 2 ), clearly 
derived from some common archetype. (Vid. Scriv. i. pp. 177-82.) 
Likewise N. and 2. (Scriv. i. p. 165.) 

b A Collation of Four Important MSS., &c, &c, by the late W. H. 
Ferrar, M.A., edited by T. K. Abbott, M.A. (Dublin, 1877). 



VARIOUS READINGS 



19 



dvTi(3d\\(iv and diopBovv. The corrector was sometimes the 
scribe himself, sometimes a different person. Such a com- 
parison with a copy in repute would add value to the codex, 
and would be noted accordingly ; e.g. in the Codex Friderico- 
Augustanus the following words occur in the subscriptions to 
the Books of Ezra and Esther : pere\r]p(p8r) /cat diopdwOrj npoo- 
ra ei-anXa 'Qpiyevova vtt avrov 8iopda>peva. ' Avtmvivoo- opokoyrjr-qcr 
avre^akev, TIapcpiXoo- diopdaxra to revxocr iv rr] (pvXaKrj. There 

are similar subscriptions to H 3 , and to a MS. of the Harkleian 
Syriac in the Cambridge University Library. 

In how merely professional a spirit this revision was 
sometimes executed is well exemplified by some of the 
corrections found in the Codex Vaticanus (B). One of the 
commonest errors in manuscripts is a confusion of et with t. 
Now in different parts of the Cod. Vat. the same word is 
found spelt sometimes with ft, sometimes with 1 ; e.g. in 
S. Luke xxiii. 10, S. John vii. 37, &c, eio-Trjueio-av, eio-rrjicei 
are rightly written by the original scribe ; in S. Matt. xii. 46, 
xiii. 2, &c. they stand iaTr]Keiaav, target. In the latter places 
the corrector has substituted the a in the first syllable ; in 
the former he has wrongly substituted t for et. Again there 
are a number of palpably false corrections by the second 
hand, as irpoa aa^arov for 7rpo(raftl3aTOv, S. Mark XV. 42 ; (60s 
for iOvos, Acts viii. 9 ; KeKoivcovrju- for neicoivaKe, Acts xxi. 28. 
Manifestly this is the work of no intelligent critic. The cor- 
rector must have had a codex before him, in which the words 
in question were confused ; and with mechanical accuracy he 
transferred the confusion to the pages which he was correcting. 

Sometimes it appears as if a codex had passed into the 
hands of some learned person, who had an opportunity of 
recomparing it with another exemplar, and thus a further 
series of corrections was introduced ; a process which might 
take place more than once. When this has been the case, it 
is easy to see what an amount of tact, patience, and judg- 

c 2 



20 



ON THE ORIGIN OF 



ment, may be required to decipher, weigh, and arrange, all 
the evidence that the manifold corrections may be made to 
give. The Cod. Sinaiticus (tf) has corrections by no fewer 
than twelve hands, of dates ranging from the fourth to the 
twelfth century. The Cod. Vaticanus (B), as we have just 
seen, is corrected throughout from another MS. (See the 
complete proofs of this in Kuenen and Cobet's edition, Pref. 
pp. xxiii-xxxviii.) As the corrections in this last case are 
of the same age as the original writing, though not by 
the original scribe, it is clear that within the compass of 
one codex we have the evidence of two manuscripts, each 
perhaps much older than the codex itself, which dates from 
the middle of the fourth century. 

Another fruitful source of various readings is that the 
possessor of a MS. would write in the margin some explana- 
tory note, which a subsequent scribe, with the MS. before 
him for a copy, looked upon as having been an accidental 
omission, and incorporated in his new text c . Instances of 
this will be found below. 

On the whole, the possible sources of various readings 
may be classed as follows : — 

1. Errors oi sight. 

2. Errors of hearing. 

3. Errors of memory. 
1 4. Incorporation of marginal glosses, &c. 

5. Corrections of harsh or unusual forms of 
words, or expressions. 

6. Alterations in the text to produce sup- 
posed harmony with another passage, 
to complete a quotation, or to clear up 
a supposed difficulty. 

7. Liturgical insertions. 

8. Alterations for dogmatic reasons. 

There is a curious instance of such an interpolation in the printed 
text of Hooker's < Ecclesiastical Polity,' Bk. VII. v. 8 (Keble's ed., vol. 
iii. p. 164). 



Possible 
sources 

of 
various 
readings. 



I Unconscious, 
or 

unintentional. 



Conscious, 
or 

intentional. 



VARIOUS READINGS 



2i 



The last head has been added because certain alterations 
have been sometimes attributed to that cause. It is a 
possible cause in a few cases, but generally the alterations 
which have been set down to this source may be attributed 
to other sources. 

Although these possible sources of variation have been 
arranged under separate heads, it must not be overlooked 
that conscious and unconscious mental action may operate 
together, and thus that an error may sometimes be due to 
both conjointly. It is probable, too, that, in estimating the 
reasons of variations, enough stress is not generally laid upon 
the unconscious failures of eye and hand and brain of the 
copyists. On the whole, however, it may be taken that 
transcription was generally executed with a fair degree of 
mechanical accuracy, and that variants are more often than 
not due to other causes than carelessness. 

It needs also to be realized that in the earliest times the 
books of the New Testament were circulated separately : thus, 
when they were combined as the four Gospels together, or 
the Pauline Epistles, and still more in complete collections, 
like codd. K and B, different parts were very likely transcribed 
from different originals ; whence different characteristics 
might be found in different parts of the same volume. This 
becomes more clear when we remember that this change was 
a consequence of the transition from the roll-form to the 
codex-, or book-form, which was going on in the third and 
fourth centuries. 

A few typical instances of the various readings arising 
from each of these sources shall now be given in order. 

i. To this head will belong omissions arising from what is 
called Homoioteleutofi. If two consecutive lines in the 
exemplar before the copyist ended with the same word, 
or even sometimes with the same syllable, his eye caught 



22 



ON THE ORIGIN OF 



the second line instead of the first, and he omitted the 
intermediate words. Occasionally this happens at longer 
distances than single lines. This is perhaps the reason 
of the omission in many codices of the words 6 ofiokoyw 
tov vlov Km rov Trarepa e^tt, i S. John ii. 23, which are 
wanting in the Textus Receptus, but which belong to 
the true text ; and of the words tovto 8e ia-nu to OeXrjfxa 
tov iren^avToo- /*e, S. John vi. 39, in Cod. C. In both 
these cases the clause preceding the omission ends with 
the same words as the clause omitted. The notes of 
any critical edition of the New Testament will supply 
numerous other instances. 
Under this head may also be classified the variations 
arising from the confusion of similar letters, as €, C (2), 
0,0; or A, A, A ; or n, TI, changing IIAN into TI AN ; 
or M, AA, confusing AMA and AAAA. This and the 
following kinds of error chiefly occur in uncial manu- 
scripts; in which the words are written continuously, 
without any break or space between them. This is 
perhaps the origin of the well-known difficulty in 
1 Tim. iii. 16 between the readings OC (os) and ec 

(Beos). 

Similar letters or syllables are sometimes omitted and 
sometimes inserted ; e. g. for the true reading IIPOC- 
CA0QN in S.' Matt. xxvi. 39, we have nP0€Aei2N 
in Codd. B, M; and for 6 kbaaaontaaaimonia in 
S. Luke ix. 49 we find € KBAAAONTATAAAIMONIA in 
Cod. H. These mistakes are sometimes called Elision 
and Ditiography, respectively. 

Letters sometimes become transposed; e.g. Acts xiii. 23, 
for CPAIN (auTrjpa 'iqaovv) we find in Codd. H 2 , L 2 , CPIAN 
(acdTrjplav). The thin horizontal lines above the words, 
which mark a contraction, are easily misplaced or over- 
looked, and in process of time would fade. On the 



VARIOUS READINGS 



23 



other hand some transpositions seem to arise rather 
from carelessness of pronunciation than of sight : e. g. 

i&akov and e\a(3ov, Kipvaroi and Kpiverco, &C. 

2. Perhaps to errors of hearing may be assigned some of the 
i/acisms, or confusions of letters having similar sounds, 
which are found in manuscripts of every age : still more 
perhaps arise from the natural habit of spelling pho- 
netically, which does not distinguish words of similar 
sound. One of the commonest confusions is that of 
the letters I and ei, which are interchanged continually, 
even in words where the I is short : e. g. 1 Thess. i. 3 in 
Cod. B, dStaXetVrcos stands written AA€ IAAIITTGC prima 
manu. In many cases, as in this last, the variation makes 
no difference in the sense, and can be at once corrected; 
but it is easy to see that such confusion might materially 
affect the sense. 

The following are some of the commonest itacisms ; and 
the instances of each are such as would involve a greater 
or less difference in the sense. 

Confusion of AI and 6 is very common : e. g. 

vnoraao-ere for -rat, S. Luke X. 20 (Cod. B*). 

iraipois for irepois, S. Matt. xi. 1 6 (several MSS.). 
A — € anovaare for -aerf, S. Matt. xiii. 1 4 (Cod. B*). 

nXrjpcoaere for -vare, S. Matt, xxiii. 32 (Cod. B*). 

I — H \qvov for \ivov, S. Matt. xii. 20 (Cod. Be). 

KafjuXov for KaprjXov, S. Luke xviii. 25 (Cod. S). 
xpurros for xpW T °s> 1 S. Pet. ii. 3 (Codd. K 2 , L 2 ). 

I — €1 arpareia for arpana, Acts vii. 42 (Codd. A, B, D). 

elarai for larai (for 'Larai perf., not larai pres.), 

S. Mark v. 29 (Cod. B*). 
O — Q late and comparatively rare : 

7roir](Top€v for notrjaoop.ev, S. Luke iii. 1 4 (several 
codices). 

fiaScos for fiaOecos, S. Luke xxiv. 1 (Cod. E, &c). 



2 4 



ON THE ORIGIN OF 



fx€ra bi<oyfxou for -ficop, S. Mark x. 30 (several 
minuscules). 

6 elnaiv for 6v elnov, S. John i. 1 5 (Codd. N a , B*, C*). 

An instance of an error of sound, slightly different in 
kind from the foregoing, is perhaps mnrep ea-nv for Kai 
Trapto-Tai, Apoc. xvii. 8, which some of the minuscules 
give, and which has passed into the Textus Receptus. 

Sometimes we find the terminations of consecutive words 

assimilated, e. g. rov dyyeXov avrov rov bovkov avrov for 
rov dyyeXov avrov rco dovXco avrov (Cod. A), ApOC. i. I J 
Or Xeyovrcov 'lovdat.cov for Xeyovrcov 'lovSaiova (Cod. C), 

Apoc. ii. 9. 

There is one sort of error which might be placed under 
either of these classes ; arising from a confusion be- 
tween words spelt with a single or double consonant : 

e. g. ov% on nepi t<ov irra>x<*>v ipiXXev avrco, S. John xii. 6 
(Cod. B), for epiXev. So between yeyevvqpai, iyevvrjdrjarav, 
and yeyevrjpai, iyevr}6rjaav } S. John i. 1 3, &C.; and eyevr)6r)- 
jxev vrjmoi for ey. r)moi (Codd. X, B*), in i Thess. ii. 7. 

3. To error of memory may probably be attributed the not 

unfrequent substitutions of synonymous words, such as 
i<pT] for elnev; pipqrai for fqXorat, I S. Pet. iii. 1 3 (Codd. 
K 2 , L 2 ) ; interchange of 6paa> and 6e<opea>, &c. ; while the 
interchange, omission, or insertion of small particles like 
Kai, Se, re, give rise to numberless variations. 

4. The following are probably instances of marginal glosses 

erroneously incorporated in the text : 

*ai t'Se inserted after epxov, Apoc. vi. 1, 3, 5, 7. 

Acts XV. 24, Xeyovres rrepirepveaBai Ka\ TTjpelv rbv vofiov, 
34, e8o£e de ra> Si'Xct e7np.el.va1 avrov , 

both which passages are wanting in most of the best 
MSS. There is a singular instance in one minuscule, 
where, at 2 Cor. viii. 4, 5, the scribe has written degao-6ai 

rjpas ev ttoXXois reov avriypatyav ovrcos evprjrai Kai ov KaBcos 



VARIOUS READINGS 



25 



rjkiri(rafi€V, The clause iv 7ro\\ols twv dvnypd(p(ov ovtcos 
evprjrai refers to degao-dai rjfxas^ words which are not found 
in the best MSS. It was no doubt a marginal note in 
the MS. from which the scribe was copying, intended 
to defend those words. The scribe incorporated the 
note. There was a much stronger tendency to insert 
than to omit; whence springs the well-known canon 
lectio prceferatur brevior : that is to say, if there are two 
readings, one longer than the other, the short reading is 
more likely than the other to be the true one. 
In the earlier MSS. we find many forms of words and 
expressions that are quite unclassical ; such as reaaepa- 

kovto. for TcaaapaKOvra ; aTreiprjs, Acts xxi. 3 1 ,* paxaipy, 

S. Matt. xxvi. 52; TrXrjfipvprjs, S. Luke vi. 48: the p 
constantly inserted in parts of \ajj.[Bav(o and its deriva- 
tives, \T)pyj/opai, \rjpcp$eis, &c. ; the final s of ovtus and the 
v icpeXKvanKov constantly affixed even before consonants ; 
v not assimilated in verbs compounded with «/ and <rw, 
e.g. evKaKeiv, (xvvKaXeiv- 2nd aor. forms with 1st aor. 
terminations, as d8a, rjXda, &c. ; and such harsh con- 
structions as ano 6 up, Apoc. i. 4 ; with many more, of 
which Part II of Winer's Grammar of N. T Greek, 
the Prolegomena of Tischendorfs Greek Test., or 
Scriveners Introduction, will give examples. These are 
for the most part altered in the later MSS. into classical 
forms ; and the phrase above quoted from Apoc. i. 4 is 
rendered less abrupt by the insertion of toO, as it is 
now read in the Textus Receptus, dno tov 6 a>v, k. r. X. 
Kuenen and Cobet, in their edition of the Vatican MS. 
(Leyden, i860), make merry over the want of scholarlike 
acumen on the part of editors who retain such forms 
in their text ; and assume that they have their origin 
solely in the ignorance and ' plebeia awrjdeia ' of the 
scribes. But they occur with such persistent frequency 



ON THE ORIGIN OF 



in the earlier MSS., that it is difficult to believe that they 
had no place in the original text. At any rate, those 
editors, whose aim is to represent the earliest form of 
text which they believe attainable according to their 
principles, are consistent in retaining such forms. (See 
below, chap, vi.) 
Alteration, either by substitution or addition, in order to 
produce conformity in parallel passages, is a fruitful 
source of variation. Dr. Tregelles suggested that 
Tatian's Diatessaron of the Gospels, formed in the 
second century, probably fostered this tendency, by 
drawing attention to their differences. But the practice 
is not by any means confined to the Gospels. Some 

instances are S. Matt. xix. 17, ri pe epcorqs 7repl tov dyadov; 
els eanv 6 dyados, changed into t'l pe Xeyeis dyadov ) ovhe\s 

dya86s d fxr) els, from the parallel passages in S. Mark 
and S. Luke. Again, in S. Matt. xvii. 2, for Xewa as 
-6 (pas, D and other authorities have Xevm as x l ^ v ^ from 
S. Mark ix. 3. In the account of S. Peter's Denial 
(S. Mark xiv.) several alterations are introduced into 
Cod. K, apparently to produce harmony with the other 
accounts : bis is omitted in ver. 30, <a\ dXeKTcop i<p<ovrio~e 
in ver. 68, and i< devrepov in ver. 72. In Acts ix. 4, 
o-Kkrjp6v aoi npos Kevrpa \aKTl£eiv is added by Cod. E, from 
the parallel passage in ch. xxvi. 14, to which the words 
really belong. 

Quotations from the Old Testament are constantly 
amplified; as at Rom. xiii. 9, where ov xf/evdopapTvprjo-eis 
is inserted in some minuscules ; Heb. xii. 20, 77 /3oXi'Si 

KaTarogevdrjo-eTcii is added in some after Xi^o^oX^^o-erat. 

On S. Matt. xv. 8, see below, p. 90. 
As instances where an alteration has been made to clear 
up a supposed difficulty, we may take S. Matt. vi. 1, 
where eXerjpoavvrjv is read in the common text for dataio- 



VARIOUS READINGS 



2? 



avpTjv; and S. Mark iii. 29, where dpapTrjpaTos has been 
altered into Kplo-ecos. 
. Two distinct kinds of variations are assigned to this 
head : — 

a. Many of our existing MSS. are copies, not of the 
whole New Testament, nor of consecutive portions of it, 
but of Lectionaries; that is to say, collections of passages 
selected for public reading in the Church services, either 
as Lessons, or Epistles and Gospels. In passages thus 
taken out of their connection a word or two must often 
be added to give a complete sense ; sometimes a proper 
name is substituted for a pronoun ; and sometimes a 
connecting particle will be dropped. All such changes 
are noted as various readings, though of course they are 
immaterial to the sense. Hence possibly arose the 
readings eh* 8t 6 Kvpws, S. Luke vii. 31, and kcu 

(TTpatpels npos tovs padrjras einev, S. Luke X. 2 2. Just 

the same sort of variation may be noticed if the Gospels 
for the third and fourth Sundays after Easter in our 
Prayer-book, or some of those for the Sundays after 
Trinity, be compared with the same passages as they 
stand in their original connection. 
But not only does this occur in the Lectionaries. It very 
early became the custom to adapt codices for use as 
Lectionaries by adding the marks dpxn and re'Xos, or 
abbreviations for these words, in the margin, to indicate 
the beginning and ending of the Lections; and more- 
over to make also in the margin the necessary verbal 
alterations alluded to above. Then, if such an adapted 
MS. was transcribed, it sometimes happened that these 
marginal additions became incorporated in the text. 
Dean Burgon (Twelve Verses, chap, xi) notes a variety 
of such instances. 

(3. There are two or three insertions in the New 



ON THE ORIGIN OF 



Testament which have been supposed to have their 
origin in ecclesiastical usage. The words in question, 
being familiarly known in a particular connection, were 
perhaps noted in the margin of some copy, and thence 
became incorporated by the next transcriber; or a 
transcriber's own familiarity with the words might have 
led to his inserting them. This is the source to which 
Dr. Tregelles assigns the insertion of the Doxology at 
the close of the Lord's Prayer, in S. Matt, vi., which is 
wanting in most of the best authorities. Perhaps also 
Acts viii. 37, containing the baptismal Profession of 
Faith, which is entirely wanting in the best authorities, 
found its way into the Latin text in this manner. 

Among readings for which this cause has been suggested, 
are the alterations in S. Matt. xix. 1 7 (see above, under 
No. 6); the variant Kvplov in Acts xx. 28 for 0eoO; and 
the substitution of ovnco for ovk, S. John vii. 8 ; 'Wj^ for 
irarrjp avrov, S. Luke ii. 33 ; vlos for 6e6s, S. John i. 18; 
the insertion of a mention of fasting with praying, 
S. Matt. xvii. 21, S. Mark ix. 29, Acts x. 30, 1 Cor. 
vii. 5 ; and the omission of S. Mark xvi. 9-20. It is 
natural at first to assign to this cause the reading in the 
Syr.-Sin. at S. Matt. i. 16, 'Joseph, to whom was 
betrothed Mary the Virgin, begat Jesus Christ ' ; which 
is unique in this absolute form, but variants of which, 
modifying the statement, are found in Syr. Cur., in four 
Greek minuscules, in seven Old Latin MSS., and in 
a Greek document lately published in Anecdota Oxon. 
(Classical Series, Part VIII). And Burgon (Causes of 
Corruption in the Traditional Text, pp. 191-231), 
assigns ' an alarmingly large assortment of textual per- 
turbations ' to corruption of the text by Heretics on the 
one hand, and by the Orthodox on the other. 

It might be thought by some persons a safer plan to 



VARIOUS READINGS 



29 



classify the errors than to attempt to assign the sources of 
error. The following list is therefore suggested, based upon 
the classification of errors which Professor Madvig makes, in 
laying down the Principles of Textual Criticism as applied 
to secular writings [Adversaria Critica, lib. i. cap. 1). It will 
not be difficult to see which of the examples already given 
illustrate the different heads. Many of the errors included 
under No. 7, and all those belonging to Nos. 8 and 9, which 
are the same as Nos. 7 and 8 of the former list, arise entirely 
from the nature of the subject-matter. 

1. Permutation of letters or words that resemble one another 

in appearance or sound. 

2. Faulty division and connection of words. (This is an 

error to which MSS. transcribed from uncials which 
were written continuously are very liable.) 

3. Doubling of letters, syllables, or words, which ought to be 

written once only. 

4. Omissions (by homoioteleuton or otherwise) and trans- 

positions of letters or words through carelessness. 

5. Assimilation to one another of the terminations of neigh- 

bouring words, and of parallel passages. 
The foregoing sorts of error are unintentional, and arise 
from failure of attention, or of memory. 

6. Introduction of foreign matter (glosses, &c). (This arises 

from defective knowledge, or error of judgment, on the 
part of the scribe.) 

7. Corrections or interpolations with greater or less degree 

of intentional alteration. 

8. Liturgical insertions. 

9. Dogmatic alterations. 

We are now in a better position, after this enumeration of 
errors, or possible sources of error, to estimate the chances 
against the original text being preserved unaltered through 
a series of transcriptions. One would naturally expect a 



30 ON THE ORIGIN OF VARIOUS READINGS 



divergence of the text of any given MS. from the original 
text, proportionate to the number of transcriptions it had 
undergone. Each transcriber in turn would probably import 
some variations through inadvertence. 

But now another consideration must be added. So long 
as the transcriptions are made under similar circumstances, 
the tendency will be to accumulate errors of the same kind. 
Hence comes the result, paradoxical at first sight, that from 
originals, marked by decided individual characteristics, texts 
may be produced that converge towards, and successively more 
nearly exhibit, another particular type. ' Groups of copies 
spring, not from the imperfect reproduction of the character 
of one typical exemplar, but from the multiplication of 
characteristic variations.' We should expect then to find, 
in process of time, a number of MSS., mutually differing 
from one another in small respects, but tolerably unanimous 
in presenting a text which will differ in complexion from the 
text presented by much earlier MSS. ; and that though the 
former might have been derived by direct descent from the 
latter. This is just what we do find. 



CHAPTER III 



ON THE MANUSCRIPTS OF THE GREEK TEXT 

§ i. On the number, mode of designation, §c, of MSS. 

The gross total number of manuscripts of the Greek Text 
whose existence is known, uncials and minuscules included, 
counting each MS. (whatever be its contents) once only, 
amounts to 3,012 (Scriv. i. p. 397*, App. F). 

It must not, however, be supposed, either that they are 
manuscripts of the whole New Testament, or that the con- 
tents of all of them have been fully examined. 

The Cod. Sinaiticus is the only uncial that exhibits the 
whole New Testament entire. Cod. A is very nearly com- 
plete ; Cod. B is not quite so complete, but has by far the 
larger part of the New Testament ; Cod. C contains portions 
of every one of the books except 2 Thess. and 2 S. John ; 
and there are about thirty known minuscules which are either 
complete or very nearly so. 

The student should carefully mark the conventions com- 
monly used in citing MSS. At the same time he must 
remember that they are not uniformly adopted yet, but that 
each critic has some slight peculiarities of his own. 
a. Capital letters are used to denote uncials ; Minuscules and 
Lectionaries (whether in uncial or minuscule writing) 
are now all denoted by numerals. All critics are agreed 
as to the notation of the uncials; of the notation by 
numerals there are now two principal systems recog- 
nized, viz., those of Scrivener and Dr. C. R. Gregory. 



32 



ON THE MANUSCRIPTS 



&. The Books of the New Testament are divided into four 
groups: viz. (i) the Gospels (Evan. — Evangelia)\ (2) 
the Acts and Catholic Epistles (Act. and Caih) ; (3) the 
Pauline Epistles (Paul.) ; (4) the Apocalypse (Apoc). 
If a MS. contain more than one of these groups, they 
generally follow each other in this order. There are a 
few special exceptions, which are given by Scrivener 
(i. pp. 72, 73). Besides these four groups, there are the 
Lectionaries (see p. 34), denominated (5) Evangelistaria 
(Evsl.), or (6) Praxapostoli or Apostoli (Apost), accord- 
ing as the selection of passages is made from the Gospels, 
or Acts and Epistles. Our existing MSS., whether uncials 
or minuscules, are thus distributed into six groups. Now, 
with regard to the first four of these groups, it is to be 
remarked that the series of letters and numerals commence 
over again for each group : consequently, a MS. which 
includes more than one of these groups will be counted 
afresh in each series, and possibly not in the same place 
in the series. Thus we find different MSS. denoted by 
the same letter or numeral, in different parts of the New 
Testament ; and the same MS. denoted by different 
letters, or numerals, in the different parts : e. g. N, A, 
and C, whose readings run through the whole of the 
New Testament, are quoted by the same letters every- 
where ; but B, the letter under which for the first three 
of the four groups the well-known Vatican MS. is cited, 
is assigned to a different MS. (Cod. Basilianus) in the 
Apocalypse, which book is wanting in the great Vatican 
MS. So D is the designation of Cod. Bezae in the 
Gospels and Acts, but of Cod. Claromontanus in the 
Epistles of S. Paul; and E means Cod. Basileensis for 
the Gospels, Cod. Laudianus for the Acts, and Cod. 
Sangermanensis for S. Paul's Epistles a . On the other 
* Where the same letter is used more than once, the cases are now 



OF THE GREEK TEXT 



33 



hand, G 3 is part of A (see App. C.) ; and Evan. 33, 
Act. 13, and Paul. 17 are the same MS.; and similarly 
in many other cases. 
The following table will exhibit conveniently the amount 
of MS. authority that exists for each of the above-named six 
groups. If a MS. contains more than one of the groups it is 
counted over again for each group that it contains. Thus 
the apparent gross total, 3,829, exceeds the total number of 
MSS. given at the beginning of this chapter. 



Groups. 


Uncials. 


Minus- 
cules. 


Totals. 


1. 




73 


1326 


1399 


2. 


Acts and Catholic Epistles . 




422 


441 


3- 


Pauline Epistles .... 


28 


497 


525 


4- 




7 


184 


191 








980 


980 


6. 






293 


293 




127 


3702 


3829 



y. Where a MS., as is frequently the case, has been cor- 
rected by later hands, it is customary to distinguish the 
readings of the different correctors by small numerals 
or letters, placed above and to the right of, the letter 
denoting the MS. ; like the index of an algebraical 
power : e. g. B 1 , B 2 , B\ (or B a , B*>, Be), would denote 
readings introduced by first, second, or third corrector 
respectively of the MS. B. An asterisk (*) affixed in 
the same way denotes the reading of the original scribe. 
Many of the uncial MSS. are mere fragments ; some of 
them contain but a few verses. The readings of all the 
uncials may be considered to be satisfactorily determined. 

commonly distinguished by a small numeral subscribed to the letter. 
Thus in the examples above given we should distinguish the MSS. as 
B L (or simply B), B 2 ; E x (or simply E), E 2 , E 3 , &c. 

HAMMOND JJ 



34 



ON THE MANUSCRIPTS 



Of the minuscules, on the other hand, comparatively few have 
been thoroughly collated. Many more have been inspected, 
and collated more or less carefully ; and good work is con- 
tinually going on in this direction. 

As to the order of the books within these several groups, 
the following facts may be noted. The Gospels generally 
follow the order with which we are familiar : but in Cod. 
Bezse b , in a, &, e, f, ff 2 , q of the Vetus Latina, and in the 
Gothic version, as well as in the Apostolical Constitutions, 
the Western order, viz. SS. Matthew, John, Luke, Mark, is 
found. There are other variations in a few isolated MSS. 
In the Pauline Epistles, in K A B C H P and about twelve 
minuscules, supported by the Bohairic Version and some 
Patristic authority, the Ep. to the Hebrews follows 2 Thess. 
and precedes the four Pastoral Epistles ; in the Codex from 
which B was copied it followed that to the Galatians ; other- 
wise the common order prevails. 

§ 2. On Lectionaries. 

The Lectionaries and the effect of the Lectionary-system 
upon other codices have been already alluded to. Almost 
all MSS., including the very oldest, are affected by it ; and 
Dean Burgon with great plausibility considers this a disturbing 
cause, to which are owing many various readings (Twelve 
Verses, cc. x, xi). There are no extant Lectionaries earlier 
than the eighth century in Greek, or than the sixth in Syriac, 
but the antiquity of the system is shown by comparing the 
liturgical notices of our earliest codices with notices in the 
writings of various early Fathers belonging to different 
countries. S. Chrysostom frequently indicates that he is 
commenting on the Lesson for the day, that his hearers 

b In Evan. 549 also a recognition of the same order seems to be inti- 
mated in some matter prefixed to the Gospels (see Scrivener, i. p. 73, 
note 2). 



OF THE GREEK TEXT 



35 



have just heard the passage read, and so on. And similar 
notices in S. Augustine, S. Cyril of Alexandria, Epiphanius, 
and the Gallican Liturgy, together with the early MSS., give 
a very widespread and powerful convergence of evidence. 
It is quite clear, in fact, that the Lectionary- system known 
to them must have been in existence a good while before 
their time. No doubt it would be in accordance with the 
analogy of other liturgical usages that a regular Lectionary 
should be the result of development. Lections for the im- 
portant Days and Seasons would be naturally the first to be 
fixed. There is force too in the argument that the fourth 
century was a period of great liturgical change, and that we 
cannot therefore argue with certainty that what we find after 
that epoch existed before it. Also it is likely enough that 
at first there were many local uses, which were gradually 
displaced by the Lection-system of the Greater Churches. Yet 
for all that it is likely that the main features of these surviving 
Lection-systems had remained from an earlier period. Hence 
though we may not lay too much stress upon the evidence of 
Lectionaries for isolated readings, yet we may argue that 
Lectionaries from widely different localities, if found to agree 
in passages that are obviously suitable to certain great Days 
or Seasons, are entitled to great attention, as being not only 
independent but very probably early witnesses. 

The particular locality to which a given Lectionary be- 
longed can often be identified by the names of the Saints 
whose days have Lections assigned to them: many Saints 
being only locally commemorated. 

There is one kind of evidence in particular which the 
Lectionaries give with a force utterly outweighing that of 
other codices : that is, when a question arises about the 
canonicity of a passage ; in other words, its claim to be con- 
sidered part of inspired scripture. It is easy to see that if 
a Lectionary includes any particular passage, it is evidence 

D 2 



36 



ON THE MANUSCRIPTS 



that the Church in a certain district believed in the genuine- 
ness and canonicity of that passage. Lectionaries record 
the witness not of individuals but of churches. And thus 
it follows that, for the purpose we have just indicated, a 
Lectionary, even though recent, would have great weight, 
far exceeding that of an ordinary codex of the same date ; 
for it represents a fixed tradition, widespread and of great 
antiquity. On the other hand, in questions of minute verbal 
accuracy, Lectionaries would not rank before the ordinary 
codices as direct witnesses. 

§ 3. On some palceographic details. 

For a minute description of the materials and palseographic 
details of MSS., the reader should consult some larger work, 
such as Dr. Scrivener's. A very few remarks will suffice for 
the object of this book. 

First of all we must explain the reason for using the term 
' minuscule ' where the reader may have expected to see 
' cursive/ We know not how far back there was a distinction 
between a formal style of writing, for literary purposes, 
consisting of capital letters formed separately, and a ' running,' 
more rapidly formed style for private use, in which the letters 
were joined together. Examples of both exist from some 
time before the Christian era. About the ninth century, 
however, the scribes adopted a literary cursive style of 
writing, a regular set caligraphic hand, which gradually 
supplanted the older ' uncial ' writing. This is the style 
which is now called ' minuscule,' leaving the term 1 cursive ' 
to include all ligatured writing, of whatever period. As 
uncial characters continued to be employed down to the 
tenth or eleventh centuries, while minuscule writing began 
to be used as early as the ninth, we have some minuscule 
MSS. older than some uncials. 

It may be laid down as a general rule that the more up- 



OF THE GREEK TEXT 



37 



right, square, and simple the uncial characters are, the earlier 
is the writing. Narrow, oblong, and leaning characters came 
in later, together with greater elaborateness in style. Absence 
of initial letters of larger size than the rest is a mark of anti- 
quity. In the earlier MSS. marks of breathing, accent, and 
punctuation are very rare, frequently absent altogether ; or, 
if present, inserted on no apparent fixed principle, except 
that a dot, to mark the division of sentences, became pretty 
general about the beginning of the fifth century. In some 
MSS., where the accents appear, as in Cod. B (see facsimile, 
Plate No. i), they have been added by a much later hand. 
From these and other marks of a like kind it is perfectly pos- 
sible for an expert to fix the date of any given manuscript of 
reasonable length by inspection, to within fifty years at the 
outside, without regard to the subject-matter of the book. 

§ 4. On the various systems of divisions of the text. 

A. Stichometry, which applies to all the books of the 
N. T. 

The subscriptions which occur in very many MSS. at the 
ends of the books, and sometimes at the end of a group of 
books, like the Catholic Epistles, to the effect that they con- 
tain so many crrixoi, draw our attention first to this mode of 
division. The o-n'^oy, known to classical as well as to biblical 
critics, was a fixed measure of length, a 'space-line,' containing 
probably sixteen syllables. In this sense it is used in the 
subscriptions to the books, to indicate the quantity of matter 
in each. In another sense however it was sometimes used 
for a division depending on the sense, a 1 sense-line ' ; such as 
would answer with us to a clause between two commas. 
Such a division would assist the reader. S. Jerome describes 
this mode of writing as ' per cola et commata ' (Pref. in Esai.). 
For a-rlxos in this sense the word ' colon ' is beginning to 
be used : and the term 1 colometry ' has been invented to 



38 



ON THE MANUSCRIPTS 



distinguish this kind of division of the Text into 'sense- 
clauses ' from ' stichometry ' which indicates the division into 
' space-lines ' (o-n'xoi). 

A colometry of the Acts and Epistles, Catholic and Pauline, 
seems to have been part of the work of Euthalius . Not 
many MSS. are arranged in this way; the waste of space 
being too considerable in days when vellum was the only 
material for books of value. A list of them is given by 
Scrivener (i. pp. 53, 547). 

B. Systems peculiar to different books. 
I. Of the Gospels there are several systems of division : 

1. The one which seems to be the oldest of all extant is 

found in Cod. B and Cod. S only. The breaks depend 
on the sense ; a fresh section commencing wherever 
a new subject is introduced. Hence, though valuable 
to the reader, it would be an inconvenient division for 
public use, since the sections are of very unequal length. 
They are reproduced in Dr. Tregelles' edition of the 
Greek Text. 

2. Next in order both of antiquity and importance are the 

so-called Ammonian Sections. It seems probable that 
the divisions, as they stand at present, are not to be 
attributed to Ammonius of Alexandria (third century), 
from whom they take their name ; but that they are to 
be assigned to Eusebius of Csesarea (fourth century), 
in connection with whose useful and ingenious system 
of Canons they are most known. 
Ammonius' idea was to form a harmony of the four Gos- 
pels, taking that of S. Matthew for the basis, and arranging 
the others in parallel columns with it, where the accounts 

There are several unsolved, but important, problems about Eutha- 
lius and his work. A list of books thereon is given by Nestle, 'Textual 
Criticism,' p. 79. The most easily accessible of these is perhaps 
' Euthaliana,' in the Cambridge ' Texts and Studies,' iii. 3. 



OF THE GREEK TEXT 



39 



coincided. Thus of course the thread of narrative of the 
other three was broken. Eusebius' intention seems to have 
been slightly different from this. He worked out a system 
for indicating the parallel passages between the Gospels, 
without destroying the sequence of any of them. A very 
slight examination of the Canons will show that by parallel 
passages (ra irapaiAriaia) Eusebius means passages which are 
illustrative of one another, and not passages which give ac- 
counts of the same events : e. g. the Miraculous Draught of 
Fishes after the Resurrection (S. John xxi. 1-6) is compared 
with the similar miracle at the beginning of our Lord's Minis- 
try (S. Luke v. 4-7) (see Canon IX). The object aimed at, 
in short, is rather that of our marginal references than 
a harmony properly so called d . 

The length of the Sections depends, not on the sense, but 
upon the verbal coincidence or disagreement of one Evangelist 
with another. Each Gospel is divided on this principle, and 
its sections are numbered continuously from the beginning 
throughout. S. Matthew's Gospel contains 355 ; S. Mark's 
233 down to c. xvi. 8; S. Luke's 342; and S. John's 232. 
Eusebius formed ten Tables (Canons) : No. 1 contains a list 
of the places (seventy-one) in which all four Evangelists 
agree; Nos. 2, 3, and 4 contain lists of places in which three 
of them have something in common ; Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 
contain lists of places in which two combine; and No. 10 
a list of sixty-two passages peculiar to some one Evangelist. 
In the Greek MSS. of course the numbers are given in the 
Greek letters which denote the numerals in question. The 
Canons and Sections may be found in Wordsworth's and 
Tischendorf's editions of the Greek Testament, transcribed 
into the corresponding Arabic numerals. 

d Much interesting and valuable matter on these Sections will be 
found in Dean Burgon's book, ' Last Twelve Verses,' pp. 125-132 and 
295-312. 



4 o 



ON THE MANUSCRIPTS 



The method of using them is as follows. Let us suppose 
that we want to find the parallel passages to some given 
passage; say S. Matt. xxii. 15, &c. : we find two numbers, 
223 and 2, prefixed to the passage, one placed above the 
other; the upper number (223) is the number of the Section, 
the lower one (2) denotes the Table. We refer then to 
Table II, which we find contains passages common to 
S. Matthew, S. Mark, and S. Luke ; and in a horizontal line 
with the No. 223 of S. Matthew's order we find the numbers 
of the parallel Sections in S. Mark and S. Luke, viz. 130 
and 243. 

The numbers indicating the Sections are found noted in 
the margin of by far the larger number of known MSS., the 
numbers of the Canons being also added in most cases, 
though wanting in a few examples. The earliest instance of 
their occurrence is in Cod. K, written by a contemporary 
hand with the scribe, if not by the scribe himself. Cod. B 
does not exhibit them. 

3. The riVAot, sometimes called Kecpakaiae, but improperly and 
inconveniently, inasmuch as this designation properly 
belongs to the Ammonian Sections, are another set of 
divisions of the Gospels very commonly found. This 
division is made according to the sense, but a TtVXos 
sometimes contains more than one subject. The name 
is apparently derived from the fact that each section 
has a short descriptive heading or designation, taken 
from the first or principal subject contained in it : e. g. 
the Sermon on the Mount, which forms the fifth of the 
tIt\oi of S. Matthew's Gospel, is headed -rrepl rav fxa<a- 
pio-fiwv. These headings are noted sometimes in the 
margin, sometimes at the head or foot of the page, or 
both together; and a list of them is generally prefixed 

e When it is necessary to distinguish, these chapters are called 
KKpaXaia maiora, and the Ammonian Sections Ke<pd\aia minora. 



OF THE GREEK TEXT 



41 



to each book. They may be seen in Dr. Tregelles' 
edition of the Greek Testament. This division was 
perhaps made for the sake of convenience in public 
reading. No trace of it is found in Codd. K or B. 
A has them. 

II. There are also several modes of dividing the Acts 
and Epistles. 

1. A continuation of the old system above mentioned (p. 38) 

is found in Cod. B. It presents, in respect of S. Paul's 
Epistles, two interesting peculiarities : viz. (1) The 
Epistles of S. Paul are numbered continuously through- 
out, as if they formed but one book. (2) Whoever 
invented this division had the Epistle to the Hebrews in 
his copy (as is shown by the numbers of the Sections in 
the margin) placed between the Epistles to the Galatians 
and Ephesians. Though in Cod. B itself the Epistle in 
question stands next after 2 Thess., yet the numbering 
of its Sections runs on continuously from the Epistle to 
the Galatians. The last Section of the Epistle to the 
Galatians is numbered 58 ; the first of the Epistle to 
the Hebrews is 59 ; while the first of the Epistle to the 
Ephesians is 70. The end of the Epistle to the Hebrews 
is lost; but there can be no reasonable doubt that the 
numbering of the Sections from it to the Epistle to the 
Ephesians would be consecutive. 

2. Another system, later than the last, is also found in Cod. 

B. In the Acts the Sections are shorter, and therefore 
more numerous ; in the Epistles the opposite is the 
case. In this system the Pauline, as well as the Catholic, 
Epistles are divided independently. The first forty-two 
of the Sections in the Acts of the Apostles are noted in 
the margin of Cod. K by a hand almost as old as the 
original scribe ; but with some want of care apparently, 
since there are five slight omissions and variations. 



4 2 



ON THE MANUSCRIPTS 



3. The K€(f)d\aia, sometimes, but wrongly, attributed to Eu- 

thalius, analogous to the nVXot of the Gospels, and 
accompanied like them by short headings or summaries 
of contents. They were probably only introduced into 
common use by Euthalius. There is no trace of them 
in Codd. A or C. 

4. Another division of the Acts and Pauline Epistles into 

avayvacreis or duayvuxrfiara (lessons), also attributed to 

Euthalius. 

III. The Apocalypse was divided about the end of the fifth 
century by Andreas, Archbishop of Csesarea in Cappadocia, 
into twenty-four Xdyoi, each Xd-yos being subdivided into three 

Ke<fid\aia. 

Important evidence is sometimes gained from attending 
to the presence or absence of such extra-textual marks as 
these. For instance, the peculiarity in the Vatican num- 
bering of the Sections of the Epistles, noticed above, gives 
proof of a valuable and unconscious kind that the Epistle to 
the Hebrews was looked upon in very early times as being 
certainly by S. Paul. Again, in two passages, viz. S. Luke 
xxii. 43, 44, where the sum of the evidence is decidedly in 
favour of retaining the disputed clause, and S. Mark xv. 28, 
where the evidence is for rejection, the testimony of the 
Sections and Canons of Eusebius is in favour of both. In 
the first case, the clause has a special number, and is placed 
in the tenth Canon, which contains passages peculiar to the 
several Gospels ; in the second case, the clause, likewise 
specially numbered, is assigned to the eighth Canon, which 
contains passages common to S. Mark and S. Luke. 

§ 5. An Account of Codd. and B. 

The reader should consult Dr. Scrivener's Introduction, or 
some other such authority, for an account of the chief MSS. 
quoted in critical editions of the New Testament. We will, 



OF THE GREEK TEXT 



43 



however, as an illustration of many points of criticism, proceed 
to give a somewhat detailed account of the two great manu- 
scripts, N' and B. Our authorities are chiefly Dr. Scrivener's 
collation of the Cod. Sinait., published with a Critical Intro- 
duction in 1864, and the Prolegomena to Teschendorf's 
smaller editions of these manuscripts. 

(i) Codex Sinaiticus (n). 

In 1844, Tischendorf, travelling under the patronage of 
Frederick Augustus, King of Saxony, and being at the 
Monastery of S. Catherine, Mount Sinai, saw some vellum 
leaves of a manuscript, apparently very ancient, in a basketful 
of papers intended for the stove. He picked out forty-three 
leaves, which he obtained for the asking. They contained 
portions of the Septuagint version, viz. parts of 1 Chron. and 
Jeremiah, with the whole of Nehemiah and Esther. The 
monks, however, having been informed that they belonged 
to a MS. of probably the fourth century, concealed the 
remainder of the MS., and Tischendorf could get nothing 
more from them for that time. These forty-three leaves he 
brought to Europe, and published with the title of ' Codex 
Friderico-Augustanus.' 

He was again at S. Catherine's in 1853, could gain 
no further tidings of the MS. But in 1859 he went for the 
third time to the East under the patronage of the Emperor 
of Russia ; and one day, being once more at the Convent, 
the steward showed him as a curiosity a MS. which he had 
long kept in his cell. It turned out to be the missing 
treasure, which he was now allowed to examine at leisure, 
and which he found to contain, besides a great deal of the 
Old Testament, the whole of the New Testament, the Epistle 
of Barnabas entire, of which the first four and a half chapters 
had been hitherto known in a Latin translation only, and 
a large fragment of the Shepherd of Hermas in the original 



44 



ON THE MANUSCRIPTS 



Greek, which was before extant as a whole only in the Latin. 
He soon recognized its immense value ; and, after studying 
it for a while at Cairo, he suggested to the community that 
they should present it to the Emperor of Russia, the great 
patron of the Greek Church. It is now at St. Petersburg. 
A sumptuous edition in four folio volumes, printed from 
specially cast type as nearly facsimile as a mechanical repro- 
duction can be, was published by Tischendorf in 1862 at the 
expense of the Emperor of Russia. 

The manuscript is written on very fine vellum. The size 
of the pages, notwithstanding mutilation by the binders, is 
still 13 J x 14! inches. The sheets, forming only two leaves 
each, and each requiring the skin of a single animal, are 
arranged in gatherings, or quires, of four (quaterniones). 
Now we know that Eusebius was ordered by the Emperor 
Constantine f (a.d. 331) to procure fifty copies of the Scrip- 
tures, handsomely got up and well written, for the churches 
in his new city of Constantinople. It has been suggested, 
with some show of plausibility, that the Cod. Sinait., and even 
Cod. B too, may possibly belong to these very fifty copies s. 

The text on each page is arranged in four columns. This 
is supposed to be in imitation of the papyrus rolls, and is an 
unique arrangement so far as we know. Cod. B has three 
columns on a page. 

f Euseb. Vit. Const, lib. iv. c. 36, 37. 

e The age of both the MSS. would admit of it. The question in part 
depends on the meaning of the words Tpiaaci koI rerpaaffd, which 
Eusebius uses in speaking (1. c.) of the copies which he sent. If these 
rather rare words mean that the sheets of the books were arranged 1 in 
gatherings of three and four? this would suit the case of « but not of B, 
whose gatherings consist of five sheets. If, however, they were 'written 
in three and four columns? or 1 sent in parcels of three and four together J 
or, as seems most probable, { each copy in three or four volumes? this 
might apply equally to both MSS. All four renderings have been sug- 
gested. But the matter is too uncertain to found any important con- 
clusion upon. 



OF THE GREEK TEXT 



45 



The writing is in plain, somewhat square, uncials : without 
spaces between the words, or breathings (except in two places, 
Tobit vi. 9 and Gal. v. 21), or accents, or iota post- or suh- 
script : there are very few marks of punctuation, but part 
of a line is often left blank at the end of a sentence. 

It must have been copied line for line from some other 
MS., since omissions of exactly the number of letters that 
would complete a line are found, and that in two ways : viz. 
sometimes as if a line were dropped accidentally, and some- 
times as if the eye of the scribe wandered from the middle 
of one line to the middle of the next line below. Instances 
of the error homoioteleuton are numerous, 115 occurring in 
the New Testament portion alone. 

Tischendorf thinks that four scribes were engaged alto- 
gether on the manuscript, but that two only of these executed 
any portion of the New Testament. One of these uses a 
particular mark in the margin (>) to indicate quotations 
from the Old Testament. This is the scribe who, as we shall 
see presently, was also the scribe of the Vatican MS. (B). 
His work consisted of twelve pages, or six conjugate leaves — 
three pairs out of three distinct gatherings. It is very probable 
therefore that these are ' cancels/ viz. leaves which for some 
reason or other were substituted for the leaves originally 
written by the other scribe. 

The same critic assigns the numerous corrections, from 
those by the original scribes themselves down to three made 
by some hand in the twelfth century, to as many as twelve 
correctors; and thinks that the scribe who used the sign 
(>), mentioned in the last paragraph, performed the office 
of SiopOooTrjs. In the eighth century the ink had become so 
faded that it was necessary to retrace the whole of the 
writing throughout the manuscript. 

It has been already mentioned that the division into tItXoi 
is wanting, but that the Ammonian Sections are marked; 



4 6 



ON THE MANUSCRIPTS 



and that in the Acts there is a division which is found besides 
only in Cod. B. 

The passage S. Mark xvi. 9-20 is wanting; but this leaf 
is one of the cancels just spoken of, and the scribe appears to 
be conscious of an omission; for, after icpofiovvro ydp comes 
a flourish such as nowhere else marks the end of a book; 
and the writing of this column is more spread out than the 
rest, as if purposely to fill up space. In Eph. i. 1, the words 
iv 'E(^eVa> are wanting, prima manu, being added by a much 
later hand. The episode S.John vii. 53 — viii. 11 is wanting, 
no gap or sign of omission being made by the scribe. The 
Epistles of S. Paul precede the Acts, a peculiarity observed 
only in five other MSS., and those minuscules ; though it is 
also the order of some Peshitto and Latin codices, and is 
supported by Epiphanius and S. Jerome. The Epistle to 
the Hebrews has the position usual in the oldest MSS., viz. 
after 2 Thess. and before the Pastoral Epistles. 

The arguments for determining its date are such as 
follow : — 

1. The beauty of the vellum. 

2. The shape of the letters. 

3. Absence of punctuation. 

4. Absence of initial letters larger than the rest. 

5. Arrangement of four columns on a page. 

6. The extreme simplicity of the titles of the books, which 

exceeds that of all other known MSS.: e.g. Kara Ma6- 

6aiov, without evayyeXiov ; 7rpa£eis } without airocTToKicv ; 
Trpos 'Pcofiaiovs, without ima-Tokr]. 

7. The fact above mentioned of the ink having so faded by 

the eighth century that the whole MS. had to be inked 
over again. 

All these points are arguments for great antiquity. 

8. But further, the absence of the nVXot, which came into 

general use in the fifth century ; and 



OF THE GREEK TEXT 



47 



9. The presence of the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shep- 

herd of Hermas, written exactly in the same way as the 
rest of the volume, would lead us to place it at least as 
early as the fourth century ; for these two books belong 
to the so-called avTiXeyo/xeva {disputed books), which were 
not definitely excluded from the Canon, but were read 
publicly, until towards the close of the fourth century. 

10. Yet, on the other hand, the presence of the Eusebian 
Canons by a contemporary hand will not allow it to be 
dated earlier than about the middle of that century. 

The student should take notice that every one of these 
arguments is independent of any internal considerations of 
the character of the text, peculiar readings, and so forth. 

(ii) Codex Vaticanus (B). Vat. 1209. 

A special interest has always been attached to the great 
Vatican manuscript. The MS. appears to have been in the 
Vatican Library almost from the establishment of that library 
by Pope Nicholas V (d. 1455); but it is first distinctly heard 
of in the correspondence of Sepulveda with Erasmus in 
1534- 

The first regular collation of it was made by Bartolocci, 
then librarian, in 1669 ; but was not used by any one before 
Scholz (1820-1852), and Muralt (1844). The second and 
third collations, known as Bentley's, were made at his request 
by Mico and Rulotta, two Roman Abbati, circ. 1 720-1 730. 
The next is that of Birch of Copenhagen (1 780-1 790). All 
these were more or less inaccurate. After this there was no 
pretence of a regular collation. Hug saw and commented 
on the MS. when it was at Paris in 18 10, but did not collate 
it. Tischendorf in 1842, Dr. Tregelles in 1845-6, Dean 
Alford and Dean Burgon in 1861, Mr. Cure in 1862, all had 
glimpses of it and examined certain readings. The editions 



4 8 



ON THE MANUSCRIPTS 



of Cardinal Mai and Vercellone had appeared in 1858-9; 
and, inaccurate as they were, added much to our knowledge. 
It is no small benefit that they gave occasion for the masterly 
preface of Professors Kuenen and Cobet (of Leyden) in their 
transcript of the codex \ 

Teschendorf had an opportunity of making a fuller exami- 
nation of it in 1866. At first he had obtained leave to 
collate the codex, but not to publish a facsimile edition, as 
he wished. However, after he had been at work on it for 
ten days at the rate of three hours a day, which was all the 
time allowed, his earnestness aroused jealousy, and further 
access was refused him. Upon further application, and by 
the assistance cf Signor Vercellone, he was at last allowed 
to consult the MS. again for all doubtful readings, but not 
thoroughly to collate it : and, making the best use he could 
of this opportunity, in forty-two hours' work, including the 
thirty hours already mentioned, he collated fully the first three 
Gospels, copied in facsimile about twenty pages, and collated 
all doubtful passages through the New Testament. From 
this examination he was able to form some conclusions on 
various palaeographic details. 

Since that time a facsimile edition, worked from the types 
which Tischendorf had had cast at Leipsic for his edition of 
the Sinaitic MS., has issued from the Roman press, prepared 
under Papal auspices by the Italian scholars Vercellone, 
Cozza, Sergio, and Fabiani. The writing of the two MSS. 
is so nearly alike that this is a fair representation. This 
edition, though not absolutely accurate, supplies much addi- 
tional help : and on the whole, from this, together with 
Tischendorf's labours and the previous collations, we have 
a tolerably complete knowledge of all the readings of this 

h Novum Testamentum ad fidem Codicis Vaticani ediderunt A.Kuenen, 
Theol. in Acad. Lugduno-Batava Prof., et C. G. Cobet, Litt. Human, in 
Acad. Lugduno-Batava Prof., i860. 



OF THE GREEK TEXT 



49 



important MS., and of its history, so far as a MS. can be 
made to iell its own history. 

It is written on very fine thin vellum, in uncial characters 
at once bold and delicate, on the whole resembling those of 
X very closely, but rather smaller. The size of the pages 
too is less than in that manuscript, but they are of very similar 
proportions. The writing is arranged in three columns to 
a page; the initial letters are no larger than the rest; the ink 
is of a reddish-brown colour. The accents and breathings, 
which appear throughout the volume, have been added by 
a later hand than the original scribe ; but there are some par- 
ticular marks due to him, e.g. the marks of quotation (> >), 
a small line interposed at the beginning of a section, the 
apostrophus ('), and a punctuation. The sheets are arranged 
in quires of five (qm'm'ones), not in terniones or quaterniones. 
The writing has been traced over afresh by a later hand 
throughout the MS., except where some letters are purposely 
passed over as erroneous. This, as in the case of Cod. K, 
would only have been done when the original ink had faded 
from age. 

As to the contents of the codex, the latter part of the 
Epistle to the Hebrews, the Pastoral Epistles, and the Apo- 
calypse are wanting. This, however, is due simply to mutila- 
tion. The MS. breaks off at Heb. ix. 14 in the middle of the 
word KaOapiu. The passage S. John vii. 53-viii. 11 is omitted 
without any gap or sign of omission. The words iv 'E^eVw 
(Eph. i. 1) are wanting, just as in Cod. K. The conclusion 
of S. Mark's Gospel is omitted ; but the scribe, contrary 
to his usual custom, leaves a whole column blank before 
the commencement of the next book, as if aware of an 
omission. 

We have already spoken of the information given by the 
numbering of the sections in the Epistles (see p. 41); and 
of the peculiar division of the Gospels which this MS. 

HAMMOND Tj. 



50 ON THE MANUSCRIPTS 

possesses in place of the WrXoc and Ammonian Sections 
(see p. 38). 

There appear to have been only three correctors whose 
readings are of any importance : — 

1. The original scribe made corrections of some slips in the 

course of transcription, besides adding, probably from 
the copy before him, some various readings in the 
margin, distinguished by a peculiar mark (s). 

2. The diopd(OTr)i introduced some readings from an appa- 

rently independent exemplar. 

3. A third hand, when the writing had faded from age, inked 

over the whole, added the accents and breathings, and 
corrected it throughout by a copy of his own time. 
That the accents are due to this corrector is evident 
from the fact that where he omitted to ink over the 
letters or syllables, as he frequently did by way of cor- 
rection, the accents are not inserted. He imitates for 
the most part the writing of the original where he adds 
anything ; yet in some places, where he was pressed for 
room, he uses forms of letters and abbreviations that 
belong in Tischendorfs and Dr. Hort's judgment to 
the tenth and eleventh centuries. Some, however, would 
place him two centuries earlier. It is certain that the 
corrector who uses these abbreviations is the person 
who retraced the faded writing, because occasionally an 
abbreviation occurs in a correction along with an omission 
to ink over some of the letters', e.g. S. Matt. xvi. 19, for 
Scoo-a) a-oL tcio- K\ei8acr (the original reading) he wishes to 
substitute the reading found in the Textus Receptus, 
kcll 8o)o-o) (tol Tad kKcis. He effects this by inserting the 
abbreviation W before 6Wo>, omitting to ink over the 
syllable -Sao-, and writing o- in the late cursive form, 
instead of the uncial form, above it. Tischendorf con- 
siders the text from which he took his corrections to 



OF THE GREEK TEXT 



5* 



be destitute of all the characteristics of very ancient 
codices. 

There are a few unimportant additions by other hands, 
e. g.— 

The subscriptions to S. Paul's Epistles are in uncial writing 

of about the sixth century. 
The coloured initial letters belong apparently to the tenth or 

eleventh centuries. 
There are sundry marginal notes, e. g. apxn, reXos, vn-eppa, 

&c, which perhaps indicate that the MS. was at some 

time used for public reading. 
Many of the arguments for the age of this MS. are the 
same, or nearly so, as those for the age of the Cod. Sinai- 
ticus. It is generally assigned to the fourth century. 

The next point which claims our attention however, and 
which is extremely interesting if true, is the connection 
which Tischendorf discovered between these two great 
MSS. The force of some of his arguments will be best 
appreciated by those who have an opportunity of working 
carefully through them in detail ; based as they are in part 
upon a multitude of minute points, of which only an instance 
or two can be given here by way of specimens. His con- 
clusion, however, is now scarcely doubted by competent 
critics. 

Certain general points of resemblance between these MSS. 
have been already noticed incidentally ; but a minute inspec- 
tion brings others to light. 

It has been asserted that the first scribe of B used no 
punctuation. This seems to be a mistake. It is true that 
the points have often faded, so as to be visible only to prac- 
tised eyes ; but in some places within a space may be seen 
the points of the first scribe side by side with those of the 
restorer, proving the fact. He was, however, irregular in his 
system, sometimes using a space of about one letters breadth 

E 2 



52 ON THE MANUSCRIPTS 

or less, sometimes a dot without a space, sometimes both, 
sometimes neither. The use of a space in the middle of 
a line without a dot is a noticeable peculiarity of his ; so is 
the use of a double point, like our colon (:), at the end 
of a book. Now here an interesting question arises. It is 
shown that four hands were engaged in transcribing Cod. K : 
of whom one, denominated D by Tischendorf, executed 
six sheets (see above, p. 45) of the new Testament, the 
Books of Judith, Tobit, and part of 1 Maccabees ; besides 
adding the inscriptions and two of the subscriptions to the 
books, and the titles of the pages ; and correcting the work 
of his associates. Now, besides the general resemblance of 
Cod. B to Cod. K above alluded to, we find that Cod. B bears 
a far more striking resemblance to those parts of Cod. K 
which were executed by the scribe in question, than to the 
rest. For instance, (1) these particular parts of Cod. K have 
these two peculiarities in punctuation. (2) They have also a 
very peculiar form of the letter S. (3) There are some arbitrary 
signs and arabesques in Cod. B in vermilion paint, which 
resemble one at the end of S. Mark's Gospel in Cod. X 
written by the scribe D, and one at the end of the Apocalypse, 
of which D wrote the beginning. (4) There is great similarity 
in the use of certain contractions. (5) There are similar 
1 itacisms,' e. g. generally Cod. X has 1 for ei, except in D's 
portion, where the opposite is the case : Cod. B has « for 1 
constantly. Again, Cod. X has Icoawrjs, except in D's portion, 
where we find Icoavrjs ; and in one place just after D's portion 
is finished, where his fellow-scribe writes laavrjs once, and then 
falls back into the other spelling : Cod. B has iaavrjs through- 
out. These are samples of arguments which, taken together, 
make it seem not unlikely that the Sinaitic scribe D was 
also the transcriber of Cod. B. If this be so, a very inter- 
esting relation would be established between the two MSS. ; 
and one not only interesting but important. For in the first 



OF THE GREEK TEXT 



53 



place they are evidently transcribed from different originals, 
since their texts differ in many places : if therefore it be true 
that they both were written in the fourth century, their agree- 
ment carries us back to a text of still higher antiquity. But 
this is not all. Cod. N was corrected throughout by two 
correctors, coeval with the original scribe, and using dif- 
ferent exemplars : it really therefore supplies us with the 
evidence of three MSS., all older than itself, and not impro- 
bably considerably older ; for of course an old and standard 
copy would probably be used, in preference to one more 
recent, for purposes of correction. And Cod. B, as stated 
before (pp. 19, 50), has been corrected throughout by one 
contemporary hand, and therefore supplies us with the evi- 
dence of two older MSS. than itself. The two codices 
together therefore supply us with the evidence of five MSS. 
of earlier date than the middle of the fourth century ; whose 
convergence of course carries us back to a text of very early 
date. 



CHAPTER IV 



ON VERSIONS, AND THE CHIEF VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 

§ i. On the nature and value of the evidence given 
by Versions. 

By a Version is meant, as has been already said, a trans- 
lation into some other language than the original. In tne 
case of the New Testament the Greek text has undergone 
this process of translation sooner or later into the language 
of almost every people that has been Christianized ; but not 
all of these versions are of critical value. A version like our 
English version, for instance, may be very admirable, and for 
the time when it was made a very masterpiece of rendering, 
and yet possess no value for a critic of the Greek text. 

The older versions have been transmitted to us in manu- 
script, just as the Greek original has been. In some lan- 
guages we possess large numbers, very diverse in age and 
character and value ; in others the total number is very scanty . 
These texts are liable to similar casualties of transmission 
as the Greek text; but the process of deterioration could 
scarcely ever affect documents in different languages, in the 
same passages, in precisely the same way. Hence if an 
ancient version accords with the early Greek MSS. in some 
particular reading, we have at least an important proof of the 
early prevalence of that reading. If a second version support 
the reading in question, the weight of evidence in its favour 
becomes enormously greater. 



CHIEF VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 55 



On such points as the omission of words and clauses, 
versions give as clear evidence as the original Greek MSS. 
do ; and it is quite possible that even where they are not 
precisely exact in their renderings they may be far from mis- 
leading ; nay, they may even indicate the true reading, since 
it may be evident how the error arose : e. g. when in the 
^Ethiopic version there is found (1 Cor. xii. 28) £ an ear/ it 
is clear that the translator, not very well acquainted with 
Greek, confused ov$ with ovs ; and from the very impossi- 
bility of his translation we infer that he must have read OYO 
There are other mistranslations, which would not long mis- 
lead the critic, in the same version : e. g. in S. Matt. iv. 13, 
it seems as if the translator supposed Splois to be connected 
with opos ; and in Rom. vii. 1 1 , e^Trarqo-e seems to have been 
read for e^narr}(re. So in our English version we find (Heb. x. 
23), ' Let us hold fast the profession of our faith/ where there 
is not a single MS. authority for the word ' ' faith' ; but the 
compositor's eye in the first edition perhaps rested upon the 
word ' faithful ' in the line immediately below ; so it crept 
in accidentally, and has never been corrected. The true 
reading is ' hope. 1 

The earliest Latin versions were so literal that they even 
give evidence on the order of the words ; the Greek order 
being retained even where it is not in accordance with the 
genius of the vernacular. Some Greek idioms too, such as 
a genitive absolute for the ablative absolute, are retained. 

When we add that the earliest Latin and Syriac versions 
were probably made not later than the second century, and 
the two Egyptian versions but little, if at all, later, it will be 
seen that their evidence on certain points is not inferior in 
value, under properly defined conditions, to that of the earliest 
Greek MSS. 

It was long before the critical value of versions was ap- 
preciated. The study of them has been in general too 



56 



THE CHIEF VERSIONS OF 



subordinate to that of the Greek text, even where attention 
has been paid to them. But in some cases, and pre-emi- 
nently in the case of the Latin versions, there is a grand field 
for independent criticism, which is only now beginning to be 
systematically explored. 

In giving a short account of all the versions which have 
a critical value, it is convenient to take the Latin versions 
first ; because some points in their early history are known 
for certain, which are matters of conjecture, though with some 
degree of probability, in the history of the Syriac, the next 
most important, versions. There is a special interest too for 
us in the Latin, because the Vulgate was for centuries the 
Bible of the West : our Reformers were trained upon it ; and 
our Prayer-book version of the Psalms is founded upon 
S. Jerome's ' Gallican ' Psalter. 

§ 2. The Latin Versions. 

Before the time of S. Jerome, and dating from an unknown 
but certainly very early period a , there existed Latin trans- 
lations of almost all parts of the Old and New Testaments. 
The Latinity is strange and uncouth, often presenting un- 
usual forms of words and expressions ; not seldom running 
word for word parallel with the Greek original, and even 
sometimes keeping the Greek construction. The origin of 
these translations is veiled in obscurity. If we took literally 
expressions found in Tertullian, S. Ambrose, Hilary of 
Poictiers, and (above all) S. Augustine, we should naturally 
conclude that they were the work of various hands ; perhaps 
the fruit of private devotion in the first place, before they 
were adopted into church use. 

The recent history of critical opinion regarding them is 

a There are traces of a Latin version as far back as the second century 
in the old translations of I S. Clem., Ep. of Barnabas, Hermas, Irenseus, 
and the Acta Martyrum Scillitanorum. 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 



57 



not a little remarkable. In the years 1832, 1833, the late 
Cardinal Wiseman propounded a theory in Two letters on 
some parts of the controversy concerning 1 John v. 7, in a 
periodical called the ' Catholic Magazine/ and since repub- 
lished in his collected Essays on various subjects (1853), 
to the effect that the old Latin version had its origin in 
Africa ; that the expressions in the writers above alluded to 
refer to emendations of this one old text, not to independent 
translations ; and that in particular one such emended text, 
more polished and correct than the rest, found acceptance 
in Italy, and was thence called Itala. This theory was based 
upon an elaborate comparison of the language (style, syntax, 
formation of words, &c.) with the extant Latin writings of 
African Fathers, especially Tertullian and Arnobius, and 
soon obtained the adhesion of a large number of eminent 
critics, both on the continent and in England. A more 
wide and searching criticism has, however, been recently 
applied, and the whole subject of the Latin versions has been 
studied more deeply, with the result in this case that the 
theory, ingenious as it is, has had considerable doubt thrown 
upon it. It was necessary for the validity of Cardinal 
Wiseman's arguments that he should have shown not only 
that the strange forms of the old Latin Version occurred 
in African writers, but that they were peculiar to those 
writers : whereas, by taking a wider survey of authors, a 
large number of parallel illustrations may be h produced, 
not only from the old Latin translations of Hermas and 
Irenaeus, but from secular writers, such as Plautus, Pliny, 
Quinctilian, Velleius Paterculus, and Aulus Gellius : clearly 
proving that many of the forms in question are not ' African- 
isms,' but that they were current pretty widely in non- 
classical or post-classical Latin. 

b See e. g. Gams' Kirchengeschichte von Spanien, vol. i. pp. 87-101, 
(Regensburg, 1862.) 



58 



THE CHIEF VERSIONS OF 



There is much yet to be done in elucidating the difficult 
questions which arise with regard to these ante-Hieronymian 
texts. It seems to be accepted generally that they fall into 
three main groups, though of course there are many MSS. 
with mixed readings, viz. (i) the African, agreeing generally 
with the quotations of Cyprian, Arnobius, Optatus, and 
Tyconius, often also with Tertullian; (2) the European, 
current apparently over the West of Europe. Whether this 
is a revision of the African, or an independent group, is not 
agreed ; (3) the Itala, probably the ' Itala ' of S. Augustine ; 
though some scholars of note think that by that term 
S. Augustine meant the then new revision of S. Jerome. 
The text of this is apparently derived from the 4 European,' 
corrected from the Greek, and made more smooth and 
polished in style. The MSS. of the other groups have 
a close affinity with D and the Curetonian Syriac, and the 
suggestion is made with some force that the origin of the so- 
called ' Western Text,' and therefore of all its representatives, 
Latin, Greek, and Syriac, was in Syria, perhaps at Antioch. 
The name ' Syro-Latin ' is coming into use instead of 
' Western,' as the name of this type of text. 

Where it is necessary in the following pages to use one 
common term of reference for the ante-Hieronymian texts 
the designation Old Latin, or ' Vetus Latina ' is used, as less 
open to confusion than 'Itala,' or ' Vetus Itala,' which are often 
found; the term 'Itala' being reserved for the Italic version 
to which S. Augustine particularly refers c . 

All the books of our New Testament Canon appear to 
have been current in some or other of these texts. The 
Gospels are placed in the order of S. Matthew, S. John, 
S. Luke, and S. Mark. 

c S. Augustine (de Doctr. Christ, ii. 15), speaking of the various 
current texts of his time, says, ' in ipsis interpretationibus Itala cseteris 
prseferatur ; nam est verborum tenacior cum perspicuitate sententige.' 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 



59 



By the end of the fourth century there was so much varia- 
tion in the existing texts, that a formal revision seemed 
necessary; and S. Jerome was requested by Pope Damasus 
to undertake the task. The greater part of S. Jerome's 
critical labours were spent upon the Old Testament; it is 
therefore beyond the scope of the present work to say much 
about them. In the course of these labours his views on 
several points connected with revision, and among others on 
the amount of change necessary to be introduced, underwent 
considerable modification. The emendation of the New 
Testament occupied his attention first, and is not therefore 
the result of his most mature judgment. Seeing that he was 
educated at Rome, and that he was undertaking the work at 
the request of the Roman Pontiff, it would be natural that he 
should take a version already current at Rome for the ground- 
work of his labour. He probably did take the 1 Itala! In 
order to avoid offending the prejudices of persons accus- 
tomed to an established phraseology he made as few altera- 
tions as possible ; only correcting obvious errors, and 
somewhat improving the latinity. The traces of his work 
are most frequent in the Gospels, which indeed, from being 
the most used part of the New Testament, were most often 
transcribed, and had therefore suffered most deteriora- 
tion. The rest of the New Testament he only revised 
cursorily. 

Such a work as the revision of an established Bible is sure 
not to be popular. Two centuries elapsed before S. Jerome's 
revision came generally into use. Meanwhile copies of the 
old ante-Hieronymian versions were current, the text still 
suffering gradually in the process of transcription. The new 
Vulgate of S. Jerome was not free from the same chances ; 
and the consequence was again so much uncertainty, that in 
the eighth century further revision was necessary. This was 
attempted by Alcuin at Charlemagne's desire. He used good 



6o 



THE CHIEF VERSIONS OF 



Latin texts, which had been preserved in the Northumbrian 
monasteries,without having any recourse to Greek MSS. About 
the same time Theodulf, Bishop of Orleans, undertook a simi- 
lar revision, using a Spanish type of MS., to which he added 
a number of marginal readings. During several succeeding 
centuries there were more isolated attempts at revision; and 
then lists of corrections (correctoria) were drawn up at dif- 
ferent times. The last authoritative revisions were that of 
Sixtus V, published in 1590; and a second, put forth two 
years later, which was rendered necessary by the arbitrary 
corrections introduced into the former Sixtine edition by 
that Pope himself, and which is known as the Clementine 
Vulgate, from having been issued under Pope Clement VIII. 
This last is the modern ' authorized ' Vulgate. It is therefore 
a somewhat composite work in respect of its readings, but is 
substantially S. Jerome's revision. 

For our present purpose we have only to do with the 
earlier stages of this version. From what has been said it 
will be seen that the critical evidence of the Latin versions 
is manifold. There is the evidence (1) of the Old Latin, 
consisting of the readings of the MSS. of that Version, 
quotations from the early patristic Latin writings (which 
supplement, date and localize those readings), and the MSS. 
of the Vulgate, which are often eclectic and have imbedded 
in them many Old Latin readings; (2) of the Corrections of 
S.Jerome, made from Greek MSS. of his time, giving there- 
fore an independent testimony of much the same age as our 
earliest surviving Greek codices; and (3) that derived from 
comparison with the Early Syriac Text, which serves to 
show the wide area over which certain remarkable readings 
were current at a very early date. 

The subject has been but partially elucidated as yet. Each 
year sees fresh facts discovered, and their significance deter- 
mined. It is no longer allowable to speak of the reading of 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 



61 



the Old Latin, or Vetus Latina, as if it were a single version, 
giving one decisive verdict. We have to think which group 
of Old Latin MSS. has supplied the particular reading we 
may be discussing, while additional difficulty is imported by 
the embarrassing fact that few codices have a pure text of 
any one type. 

Thirty-eight codices of the Old Latin are catalogued by 
Scrivener. Of the Vulgate it is computed that about 8,000 
exist. 

The chief codices in each group of the Old Latin are : — 



African Cod. Palatinus (iv. or v.) e 

„ „ Bobiensis (vi.) k 

„ „ Floriacensis (vi. or vii.) h 2 

European ... Cod. Vercellensis (iv.) a 

„ ... „ Veronensis (iv. or v.) b 

„ ... „ Colbertinus (xii. or xiii.) ... c 

„ ... „ Claromontanus (iv. or v.) ... h 

„ ... „ Vindobonensis (v. or vi.) ... i 

Italian Cod. Brixianus (vi.) f 



The two most accurate codices of S. Jerome's Vulgate are 
Cod. A?niatinus and Cod. Fuldensis. The text of the former 
is reprinted in Dr. Tregelles' edition of the Greek Testament ; 
the latter in Lachmann's larger edition, and separately by 
Dr. Ranke. Cod. Fuld. is of the sixth century: Cod. Am. 
is dated c. 700. 

The Alcuinian Recension is well represented by the Codices 
Karolinus, Bambergensis, and Vallicellensis. 

The Theodulfian Recension by Codices Theodulfianus and 
Hubertianus. 

§ 3. The Syriac Versions. 

The general aspect and textual characteristics of two of 
the Syriac versions, the Curetonian (now reinforced to some 



62 



THE CHIEF VERSIONS OF 



extent by the ' Lewis * or 1 Sinaitic ' Syriac) and the Peshitto, 
so closely resemble those of the Vetus Latina and Vulgate 
respectively, that the suggestion is very obvious that they 
bear a similar mutual relation to each other ; though we do 
not know this as a historical fact, and it is opposed by some 
good authorities. 

Our chief authority for the version called the Curetonian 
Syriac is contained in a manuscript of the fifth century, 
brought by Archbishop Tattam in 1842 from one of the 
Nitrian monasteries. It consists of fragments of the four 
Gospels. It takes its name from having been brought into 
notice by Dr. Cureton, who observed that its text differed 
from that of the ordinary Peshitto, and published it in 1858. 
Three more fragments have been discovered and published 
since. The text is ruder than that of the Peshitto, and has 
many interpolations, sometimes in common with Cod. D, 
sometimes unsupported by other authority; but in many 
characteristic readings it is in remarkable agreement with the 
oldest witnesses. It often exhibits readings which are found 
in quotations by the early writers, such as Aphraates. In 
fact it is the chief Syriac textual representative of the Syro- 
Latin, or Western, text, which, as is shown by its being 
quoted from, must have had some early circulation in Syria. 
It apparently represents closely the text of Tatian's Diates- 
saron; and, if it be true that the Armenian Version (see 
below) was made from a text of this type, the view that this 
was the type held in honour in the fourth century would find 
powerful support. It gives the account of the Bloody Sweat 
(S. Luke xxii.) which S. Ephrem and Isaac of Antioch give, 
but which is wanting in the Peshitto : and so on. 

The Gospels stand in the order SS. Matthew, Mark, John, 
Luke ; and the portions of each remaining are : — 

S. Matthew i. 1 — viii. 22 ; x. 32 — xxiii. 25. 

S. Mark xvi. 17-20. 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 



63 



S. John i. 1-42; Hi. 6 — vii. 37; vii d . 37 — viii. 19 ; xiv. 10- 
12, 16-18, 19-23, 26-29. 

S. Luke ii. 48 — iii. 16; vii. 33 — xv. 21 ; xv. 22 — xvi. 12 ; 
xvii. 1-23 ; xviii. 24 — xxiv. 44. 

A remarkable peculiarity is that in the Genealogy given by 
S. Matthew are inserted the names of the three kings omitted 
in the common text, viz. Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah, 

A Palimpsest copy of a text in many respects similar was 
discovered in 1892 by Mrs. Lewis and Mrs. Gibson in the 
Library of S. Catherine's Convent on Mount Sinai, and 
published in 1894. It is called the 'Lewis' or ' Sinaitic' 
Syriac. One peculiarity connecting this codex with the 
Curetonian is as follows : in the Curetonian S. Matthew's 
Gospel is headed 'The divided Gospel of Matthew.' At the 
end of S. John's Gospel in the Sinaitic is the subscription 
'Here endeth the Gospel (sing.) of the divided four books! 
This curious word 'divided' (or 'separate') in this con- 
nection is thought to indicate a copy of the four Gospels 
transcribed separately as distinguished from a recension in 
which they were combined in a Harmony, as in Tatian's 
Diatessaron. Now it is known that Bishop Rabbulas of 
Edessa (407-435) instructed his presbyters and deacons to 
see that all their churches possessed and read a copy of 
the Distinct, or Divided, Gospels, just about the same time 
that Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, narrates that he replaced 
200 copies of Tatian's Diatessaron in his diocese with as 
many copies of the Four Gospels. This seems a possible 
hint of place and time for the use of this text. A strange 
reading of this Syr. Sin. has been mentioned above (p. 28) : 
some more particulars about the MS. and its character may 
be seen in an article in the Ch. Quar. Rev., No. 79 (April. 
1895). 

The Peshitto appears, from its containing neither the dis- 
d Without, however, the Pericope Adulters. 



6 4 



THE CHIEF VERSIONS OF 



puted Catholic Epistles e nor the Apocalypse, to belong to 
a period anterior to the fourth century, when those Epistles 
were formally received into the Canon. The same is shown 
by the fact that all the sects into which the Syrian Church 
was separated in the fourth and fifth centuries alike use it. 
It also exhibits readings of undoubtedly high antiquity. 
Seeing that no other Syriac text with any claim to antiquity- 
was known to exist until so recently, there is no wonder that 
the idea should have gained currency that this is the Syriac 
version to which Eusebius refers as existing in the second 
century (Eus. H. E. iv. 22). But when a close examination 
seemed to show signs of assimilation to a later type of text, 
analogous to those displayed in the Cod. Brixianus of the 
Latin MSS., and such as began to be current about the fourth 
century, the suggestion was a natural one that the Peshitto 
is a recension of an older text, of which we have possibly 
specimens in the Curetonian and Sinaitic Syriac. As long 
ago as 1 76 1 it had been asserted by Dr. Gloucester Ridley 
that the Peshitto, as now known, was the gradually formed 
product of several successive revisions. This hypothesis was 
repeated by Griesbach. And now, since the discovery of the 
Curetonian, various critics of note have expressed their belief 
that in that version we have a representative of an earlier 
state of the text. This, however, must not be taken for more 
than a possibility : for the Peshitto Version is undoubtedly of 
great antiquity. Some students hold that it was the authorized 
version, and existed side by side with that represented by the 
Curetonian. Tischendorf, in the short description of his 
Apparatus Criticus, prefixed to his eighth edition, assigns 
the Curetonian to the middle, the Peshitto to the end, of the 
second century : others would assign the Peshitto to the end 
of the third or beginning of the fourth. 

The Curetonian and the Peshitto are not the only Syriac 
6 i. e. 2 S. Peter, 2 and 3 S. John, and S. Jude. 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 



65 



versions. A version was made at Hierapolis in Eastern Syria 
(a.d. 508) by Polycarp, a Chorepiscopus, at the instance of 
Philoxenus, the Bishop of Hierapolis, from whom it has 
received the name by which it is commonly known, the 
Philoxenian. The only parts of the New Testament known 
to exist in this recension are a few small fragments of S. Paul, 
published by Cardinal Wiseman from the margin of his 
Karkaphensian Syriac MS., and the text of the four disputed 
Catholic Epistles (p. 64). This is found in several MSS., 
viz. one in the Bodleian, one at Trinity College, Dublin, 
several in the British Museum, and one in the possession of 
the Earl of Crawford. (See Smith's Diet, of Chr. Biog., Art. 
' Polycarpus (5)/) 

The version which has come down to us, and which is 
sometimes cited as the Philoxenian, sometimes as the Har- 
kleian, used to be considered a revision of the Philoxenian 
properly so called, just mentioned, but it is now thought to 
be a substantially new version. It was made at Alexandria 
(a.d. 616) by Thomas of Harkel, also Bishop of Hierapolis. 
Every part of the New Testament, except possibly the Apo- 
calypse, is now known to be supported by the manuscript 
authority of several codices. And it is argued from the 
nature of the text that the Syriac Apocalypse, as commonly 
given, is of this Version. (See Smith's Diet, of Chr. Biog., 
Art. ' Thomas Harklensis/) 

The characteristic feature of this version is its slavish 
adherence to the Greek : word stands over against word, 
and particle for particle, even to the utter destruction of the 
Syriac idiom; so that it is difficult to conceive that it was 
ever intended for general use. At the same time this very 
fact gives it a special critical value; for it becomes an ad- 
mirable witness to the state of the current Greek text at the 
time when it was made (seventh century) ; and it shows that 
this text had now undergone a considerable change in its 

HAMMOND P" 



66 



THE CHIEF VERSIONS OF 



character. There is another point of great value to be re- 
marked, namely, that there are various readings from one, 
two, and sometimes three, Greek MSS. added in the margin; 
the very Greek words being occasionally given. These 
readings are clearly taken from texts of a much earlier type. 
Hence the Harkleian text and margin are always cited sepa- 
rately. The text of the Acts has interpolations resembling 
those of Cod. D. Neither the Peshitto nor the Harkleian 
contains the passage S. John vii. 53-viii. 11. Ridley's Cod. 
Barsalibaei has the passage, but it is clearly an addition by 
a later hand. The Curetonian MS. is defective at that part. 

The so-called Jerusalem- Syriac is the only other Syriac 
version that is cited in critical editions. It is found in a partial 
Lectionary of the Gospels in the Vatican Library, which, 
according to a subscription attached to it, was written at 
Antioch in 1030 a. d. It was first edited by Count Francis 
Miniscalchi Erizzo in 186 1-4; and again by de Lagarde, 
published posthumously in 1892. Two fresh MSS. of the 
same have been discovered in the Convent on Mount Sinai, 
and published : as have also been some fragments preserved 
both in the British Museum and at St. Petersburg. The 
same three sources have yielded a few fragments of the Acts 
and Pauline Epistles. The version appears to have been 
made from the Greek, in the sixth century according to 
Adler, in the fifth according to Tischendorf. It is an inde- 
pendent version, rude and peculiar in style. Its readings are 
said by Scrivener to resemble those of Codd. B, D. The 
name is given to it because its grammatical forms have often 
more affinity with the Chaldee than with the Syriac, and 
many of its words may be 1 illustrated from the Chaldee por- 
tion of the Old Testament, from the Jerusalem Targum, or 
the Talmud.' It contains S. John vii. 53-viii. 11. 

Besides these there is the so-called Karkaphensian version. 
The chief MS. in which this supposed version was found is 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 



67 



in the Vatican. The name, according to Dr. Bickell, is derived 
from the monastery of Carcaphtha, where it was written. His 
judgment of it is {Conspectus rei Syrorum literarice, p. 9), 
\ Nihil aliud est quam correctorium biblicum ' : and he goes 
on to say that it contains only those passages of the Old and 
New Testaments in the Peshitto, and of the New Testament 
in the Harkleian Version, which presented variation of reading, 
or some ambiguity in meaning : so that it is called 1 liber 
nominum et lectionum.' Hence it appears to be not so much 
a dialectic Version as an explanatory recension or Massorah 
of the ordinary Syriac — 'an attempt to preserve the best 
traditions of the orthography and pronunciation of the more 
important or difficult words of the Syriac Vernacular Bible/ 
This version is not quoted for critical purposes. 

§ 4. The Egyptian Versions. 

The term ' Coptic,' formerly limited to the one dialect 
sometimes called ' Memphitic ' and now ' Bohairic,' and so 
used by Tischendorf, is really a generic term, and an Arabic 
adaptation of the word Afywmos, applied by the Arab con- 
querors of Egypt to the language spoken by their Christian 
subjects. Many questions about the language and its dialects 
and their mutual relations, as well as about the Versions into 
them, are still undetermined, and wait for further evidence. 
It is accepted at present that there are three main branches 
of the old Egyptian language, viz. (1) that of Lower Egypt, 
i.e. the district near to Alexandria and the sea; formerly 
called ' Memphitic,' and now ' Bohairic' ; (2) that of Middle 
Egypt, which includes the district around the ancient Memphis, 
together with the Fayoum, 2l depression of the desert west of 
the Nile and parallel with it, but south of the Delta, and the 
district around Akhmim (the ancient Panopolis) ; (3) that of 
Upper Egypt (Thebaid), formerly called Thebaic, and now 
Sahidic. There exist remains of versions in all these dialects, 

F 2 



68 



THE CHIEF VERSIONS OF 



but none in the Bashmuric, another dialect mentioned by 
an eleventh-century Coptic Bishop, Athanasius, as extinct 
in his time. 

The Bohairic version probably dates from the third century. 
It is a faithful rendering of the original and represents a text 
on the whole very similar to that of B, free from so-called 
' Western ' additions. It seems to contain all the books of 
our present Canon, except the Apocalypse; which, though 
found in some MSS., is always in some way marked as 
separate from the rest. The order of the books of the New 
Testament differs from that of the Greek MSS. (p. 32): being 
(1) Gospels; (2) Pauline Epistles; (3) Catholic Epistles; 
(4) Acts. The Gospels occur in their usual order, and the 
Epistle to the Hebrews is placed after 2 Thess. and before 
1 Tim., as in the oldest Greek MSS. (p. 34). Thirty-six 
codices of the Gospels, eighteen of the rest of the Canon, 
and ten codices of the Apocalypse, eight of them separate, 
are known. Some of these, however, only contain single 
books, or portions of books. As to the age of the MSS. 
themselves, there are two fragments which perhaps belong 
to the fourth or fifth centuries, one of the Gospels perhaps 
of the tenth ; but the bulk of them are not earlier than the 
twelfth century, while some are much later. There are also 
a considerable number of Lectionaries in existence. 

The Sahidic version is thought to have been made from 
a text independent of the original of the Bohairic. It is 
rougher and less polished in style, with many variations and 
' a certain infusion ' of 1 Western ' readings. Possibly there- 
fore it represents an earlier type of text than the Bohairic 
does; but there is pressing need for a comprehensive and 
critical edition of it. The materials, though consisting 
entirely of fragments, are sufficient to produce an almost 
complete New Testament. The Canon appears to be the 
same as that of the Memphitic; but the Epistle to the Hebrews 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 



69 



stood after 2 Cor., and before that to the Galatians. Of the 
extant fragments several are adjudged to belong to the fourth 
or fifth centuries, and several more, written on papyrus, to be 
much older still. 

The Middle Egyptian (or Lower Sahidic), Fayoumic, and 
Akhmwi Versions also exist only in fragments at present; 
and the extent of these is too small to warrant any very 
certain conclusions. They are in fact thought by some only 
to represent older forms of the same text as the Sahidic. The 
interest in them is, however, linguistic as well as textual, for 
the light they may throw upon the old language of Egypt 
and its dialects. 

§ 5. The Gothic Version. 

The Gothic version was made by Ulfilas, who was bishop 
of the Goths 341-381 a.d. It is therefore undoubtedly of 
the fourth century. It must have been extensively circulated, 
since traces of its use both by Eastern and Western Goths 
have been found in Italy and Spain. That it was translated 
from Greek manuscripts is certain, says Tregelles, from the 
manner in which the Greek constructions and the forms of 
compound words are imitated. As to the character of the 
text, Dr. Scrivener's judgment is that it approaches nearer to 
the received text than the Egyptian versions do ; which same 
fact Tregelles describes when he declares it to be what he 
terms ' the transition text ' of the fourth century, such as is 
found in the Cod. Brixianus of the revised Itala. 

Seven codices are known, containing parts of all the books 
of the New Testament, except the Acts, Epistle to the Hebrews, 
Catholic Epistles, and Apocalypse. They are (1) the cele- 
brated Codex Argenteus at Upsala, of the fifth or early sixth 
centuries, in silver letters, with gold initials (which some have 
thought were impressed with a stamp), upon purple vellum. 
It contains fragments of the Gospels arranged in the 'Western' 



THE CHIEF VERSIONS OF 



order, like the Veins Latina (p. 58). (2) Codex Carolinus, 
a palimpsest containing about forty verses of the Epistle to 
the Romans. It is a portion of the same codex in which are 
also found Codd. P, Q of the Greek Gospels, and c gue' of 
the Velus Latina ; and is of the sixth century. (3) Five other 
palimpsests in the Ambrosian Library at Milan, also probably 
of the sixth century, containing a little of the Old Testament, 
a few passages of the Gospels, and a good many passages of 
the Pauline Epistles. All the extant fragments have been 
collected by Gabelentz and Loebe (Leipsic, 1 836-1 846). 
Those of Cod. Arg. have been published separately by several 
editors. 

§ 6. The Aithiopic Version. 

The ^Ethiopic version has not yet been edited with critical 
care. We do not know its date: but we do know that 
Christianity was introduced into ^Ethiopia in the fourth 
century. It might therefore date from about that time. By 
some competent authorities, however, it is assigned to the 
sixth or seventh centuries ; and its surviving codices appear 
to be of no earlier date than the fifteenth. The curious mis- 
translations that occur in it (see p. 55) show that it was made 
from the Greek, but evidently not by persons to whom Greek 
was familiar: and there are said to be interpolations from 
Syriac and Arabic sources. The Gospels and Epistles seem 
to have been the work of different hands ; and the idea of 
a revision of the text by different Greek MSS. from those 
from which it was first translated is said to be suggested in 
this case too by its mixed readings. An edition 1 by native 
editors' was printed in Rome and published as early as 
1548-9. This was reprinted badly in Walton's Polyglott 
(1657) ; more critically by C. A. Bode at Brunswick (1753), 
who also fifteen years afterwards issued some special criticisms 
and corrections. Lastly, an edition has been issued by the 



THE NEW TESTAMENT 



71 



British and Foreign Bible Society, in which other MSS. were 
made use of, but on no systematic critical principles. 

§ 7. The Armenian Version. 

The history of this version is not clear, nor has the text 
been critically edited ; but it is thought that the earliest trans- 
lation of the New Testament into Armenian was made in the 
fourth century from the Syriac, and possibly from a form of 
the Syriac akin to the Sinaitic Syriac (see 'Texts and Studies/ 
III. iii, ch. 5). This was revised by the help of more accurate 
copies from Constantinople, whence they were brought by 
two delegates, who also brought the Canons of the Council 
of Ephesus about the year 433. It contains all the books of 
the New Testament. Early codices of the Gospels in uncials 
are fairly common. Scrivener's Introduction records one 
(cent, vii), one (viii), three (ix), six (x), and six (xi). The 
rest of the New Testament is only found in minuscule copies 
of the whole Bible. 

These are the only versions that possess any considerable 
critical value. For more detailed information on some points 
the student is referred to the various articles in Hastings' 
Dictionary of the Bible, and to vol. II, chaps, ii-v, of Scri- 
vener's Introduction. 



CHAPTER V 



ON PATRISTIC QUOTATIONS 

The materials in this, our third branch of evidence, were, 
till recently, in a far less satisfactory state than is the case 
either with the Greek MSS., or with the Versions. This was 
chiefly owing to the fact that so little real critical care had 
been spent in editing the writings of the Fathers. Now, 
however, as the volumes appear of the Vienna 1 Corpus 
Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum,' and of the Berlin 
Academy's edition of the ante-Nicene writings, supplemented 
by the labours of various independent authors, this reproach 
is being gradually wiped away. 

In the ordinary editions it is impossible to feel sure that 
a Father, quoting Holy Scripture, had before him or in his 
mind the exact form of the quotation that seems to be ren- 
dered in that edition. The writings of the Fathers, like those 
of other authors, have come down to us by transcription ; 
and have suffered, as others have, in the process. It has 
happened not seldom that transcribers, doubtless believing 
they were doing a good work, have altered the words of a 
quotation in the work they were transcribing, to the more 
familiar reading of the commonly received text of their 
time. This is proved in many instances by direct evidence ; 
as when extracts are preserved from the patristic writings in 
some Catena or Commentary which gives the quotation in 
what we have otherwise reason to believe is the older form, 
while the recently transcribed MSS. of their works present 
us with the reading which we find in the Textus Receptus. 
Sometimes again the embedded quotation, as it appears in 
the common editions, is so manifestly inconsistent with the 



ON PATRISTIC QUOTATIONS 



73 



context, as to make it clear that the author could never have 
given it thus. 

This may be illustrated by comparing a comment of 
Eusebius on S. Matt. i. 19 with a version of the same 
in a Catena. The original reading of the Evangelist was 
SeiyfiaTlaai, and the manifest drift of the comment is to 
account for his having used the simple verb, and not the 
compound Trapadetypario-ai. But the later reading is napadei- 

yixarlaai ; and the compiler of the Catena, in a blundering 
attempt (apparently) to reconcile the comment with the 
reading which he was familiar with, has transposed the verb 
and its compound in such a way as to make absolute 
nonsense a . 

In respect of the readings os and Beds (1 Tim. iii. 16) the 
citation from S. Chrysostom preserved in Cramer's Catena 
on the passage shows that Beos is an interpolation, though 
S. Chrysostom's authority has been quoted for the reading 
6e6s ; and that S. Cyril of Alexandria read 6s is proved, not 
only by the context, but by an express marginal note in 
several of the MSS. (see Tregelles on the printed Text of 
the New Testament, p. 227), viz. 6 iv aylois KvpikXos iv t&> i/3' 
K€(j>a\aL(o twv tTKokiav (prjalv 6s icpavepaBr/ iv (rapid. 

By way of illustrating the extent of this field of evidence, 

it has been said that if every copy of the Greek Testament, 

a The comment of Eusebius is as follows : — eS yovv Kal to pf) OiXcuv 
avrriv oeiynaricrai elprjadai Sok(T vnb tov eiayyekiarov' ov yap etprjo'e fx-q 
6e\ojy avrriv irapadeiyfiarioai, ak\a fir) hnyixariaai OeKcov, TroWrjs ovarjs 
kv tovtois oia<popas .... to fiev yap TtapabiLyixariaai rr)v km /ra/cws npd- 
£avri els irdvras (pavepcoaiv tc Kal diafiokfjv i/irofidWei voeTv, to Se deiy/Jia- 
Tiaai rb (pavepbv cbrAwj iroirjoai. Which the Catena renders thus: — 
€v yovv fioi ical rb jxr\ OeXeiv avrrjv Seiy/xaTiaai eiprjaOai 8oku vtto tov 
T&vayyeXiCTOv' oxj yap 'dcpqaev p.r) Oe\eiv avrr)v deiyjMTiaai, aWa ' /xr) 
napabuyixariaai 0e\ouv' iroWfjs ovo~r)s iv tovtois dia<popas' ... to fiev yap 
■napadeiyfiaTicFai rrjv km KaKq> irpd£avri navras <pav£paioiv re Kal diafioXrjv 
viroffaXXei voeiv' 6 roivvv 1 'lajGrj<p diKaios tov, Kal /ui) Q£\ojv avrrjv irapa- 
ceiyixaricai ' tovtIgtiv els (pavepbv rois iraaiv dyaytiv, ' k^ovK-qdrj Addpa 
d-noKvaai airrjv' Cramer's Catena, vol. i. p. 12. 



74 



ON PATRISTIC QUOTATIONS 



manuscript and printed, had perished, and only the Patristic 
quotations remained, together with a copy of some one ver- 
sion to serve as an index whereby to arrange them, we should 
be able to reconstruct the whole. This, however, is an over- 
statement (see Hort's Introd. § 125); nor should we be sure 
of the exact form of some of the quotations. 

Besides verbatim citations, it often happens that the Patristic 
writers quote the New Testament writings in a less exact 
way, by interweaving the words with their own, and altering 
the structure of the sentences to suit their own. In the 
writings of the Apostolic Fathers almost all the quotations are 
thus introduced. Such quotations are free from the chance 
of variation just mentioned : on the other hand, they will 
only furnish aid to the textual critic where the sense of the 
passage may vary with the alteration, and not on such delicate 
questions as the insertion or omission of particles, choice 
between different tenses of the same verb, and so on. 
Evidence might be gained from them as to the existence of 
the passage in question in copies of the author's time : on the 
whole, however, this looser kind of citation, together with the 
still more precarious class of mere allusions, is of more value 
in determining the contents of the Canon of Scripture, than 
in the problems set before the textual critic. 

Most important of all is the help given where the writer 
recognizes different readings of a passage, and expressly 
states that, while many MSS. have some particular reading 
or readings, the best and most accurate have another, which 
he gives. The existence of various readings was recognized 
distinctly as early as the time of Marcion who was charged 
with corrupting the text of Scripture to suit his own views. 
The labours of Origen (186-254) and Eusebius (264-340) 

b The date of Marcion's birth is unknown. He was settled at Rome 
and his heresy had become strongly established there before the publi- 
cation of Justin Martyr's First Apology. 



ON PATRISTIC QUOTATIONS 



75 



for the Greek text, and of S. Jerome (died 430 c ) for the 
Latin, were distinctly and avowedly critical. These writers 
had just the same variety of readings before them as is 
exhibited by the MSS. and versions that now exist; the 
greatest corruptions of the text having been introduced 
before the end of the second century ; and they frequently 
appeal to certain ' accurate ' or ' approved ' copies, which 
seem to have been preserved as standards, and to which 
reference is also made at the end of some of the MSS. as 
having served for standards of revision (cf. pp. 19, 147). 

The value of even the most definite Patristic citation is 
only corroborative. Standing by itself, any such citation 
might mean no more than that the writer found the passage 
in his own copy, or in those examined by him, in the form 
in which he quotes it. The moment, however, it is found to 
be supported by other good evidence, the writer's authority 
may become of immense importance. Perhaps the best 
illustration of what is meant will be found in the discussion 
of a reading, wherein a statement of S. Irenaeus, a writer of 
the second century, holds a prominent place. The passage 
in question is S. Matt. i. 18 ; the point to be determined is 
whether 'iiyo-oO should stand in the text before Xpiarov or not. 
It is found in the text of every known Greek manuscript 
containing the passage : on the other hand, S. Irenaeus 
appears to assert that it should not be there, and gives a 
reason for his statement. His words are, as given by his 
Latin translator (for the Greek original does not exist), 
' ceterum potuerat dicer e MatthcEus Jesu vero generatio sic 
erat, sed prcevidens Spiritus S. depravatores, et prcemuniens 
contra fraudulentiam eomm, per MatthcEum ait Christi autem 
generatio sic erat/ In weighing the evidence on both sides, 
we must anticipate some statements, the reasons for which 

c The date of S. Jerome's birth is uncertain ; different years, ranging 
from 329 to 345, have been assigned. 



76 



ON PATRISTIC QUOTATIONS 



have not yet been given, but which we shall attempt to sub- 
stantiate further on. 

There is a variant rov de 'Itjo-ov : but it may be at once 
dismissed, as having no important evidence in its favour. 

For the reading rov 'It/o-oO Xpio-rov there are all existing 
Greek MSS. (except Cod. B, which has rov 8£ Xpiarov 'tyo-ov ; 
and probably D ; for though the Greek text is wanting at this 
place, the Latin version, which is generally a slavish interpre- 
tation of the Greek, reads Christi). With them are the two 
Egyptian versions, the Peshitto, Harkleian and Jerusalem 
Syriac, the Armenian and the ^Ethiopic ; and of Patristic 
writers Origen, Eusebius, and others of later date. 

On the other side, for the reading rov 8e Xpiarov are all the 
Latin versions, including the Vetus Latina ; the Curetonian 
and Sinaitic Syriac; and S. Irenaeus expressly, as we have 
seen, and S. Jerome. 

The chief consideration which causes any real hesitation 
in accepting rov de 'lrjo-ov Xpio-rov on this important array 
of evidence is the above express explanation of S. Irenaeus, 
together with his statement that Greek MSS. with his reading 
were known to him, for his evidence increases considerably 
the area over which we know that this reading (rov d£ Xpiarov) 
was current. 

It is also true that the collocation of words 6 'lrjo-ovs Xpto-ros 
seems very unlikely to be found in the New Testament. At 
least, if it be genuine here, this is the only passage in which 
it is genuine. The reading of the Textus Receptus in Acts 
viii. 37, i S. John iv. 3, and Apoc. xii. 17 being certainly 
spurious. 

We may add that it is more in accordance with the usual 
laws of the variation of MSS. that the short reading should 
have been changed into the longer one, than vice versa. 
While such a variation as that above remarked in B is not 
seldom an indication of an antecedent corruption of the text. 



ON PATRISTIC QUOTATIONS 



77 



The impression left upon one's mind on the whole is that 
rod de XpiaTov is the earliest reading, but that 'I^o-oO was 
inserted very early indeed. 

Tregelles reads roO Se xpiarov unreservedly. Westcott and 
Hort read rod 8e ['I^o-oS] Xpca-rov, admitting 'lrjaov, but within 
brackets. Tischendorf, however, as also does Dr. Scrivener, 
supports the ordinary reading. 

The age at which a writer lived must be taken into account 
in weighing his evidence ; the earlier being of course cceteris 
paribus the more valuable. The country where he wrote is 
also sometimes very important. 

Sometimes, as for instance when a writer is commenting 
continuously on the words of a passage, an inference of some 
value may be drawn against words that he omits. So too, 
though this is still more precarious, if in a discussion on 
some particular doctrine, a passage notably bearing upon it 
is not adduced, there is some presumption that the passage 
was unknown to that writer. 



CHAPTER VI 



DISCUSSION OF THE EVIDENCE DERIVED FROM THE FOREGOING 
SOURCES 

§ i. Summary of results reached so far. 

The results at which we have arrived may be summed up 
as follows : — 

We have seen that it is possible to assign approximately, 
on purely external considerations, the date at which any 
given manuscript was transcribed. This, however, does not 
necessarily give the date of the text contained in the MS., but 
only a date than which the text cannot be later. It is possible 
that a MS. of late date may have been copied from one little 
earlier than itself, and this again from one but little earlier, 
and so on ; so that a great number of transcriptions have 
intervened between it and the original text ; each transcrip- 
tion introducing fresh variations ; or on the other hand, it 
may have been copied directly from a MS. of great antiquity, 
so that it is only a few steps removed from the original. 
Thus a very (comparatively) recent MS. may present a very 
ancient text; but the first presumption is against it, and 
the claim must be proved for every separate case. A know- 
ledge, however, of the" date of an early MS. is useful as giving 
a point of time before which any variation occurring in that 
MS. must have arisen. We have two MSS. of the fourth 
century supplying us, as has been shown already, with the 
evidence of other MSS. of a date anterior to themselves. 
There are other MSS. of every subsequent century down to 
the fifteenth. 



DISCUSSION OF THE EVIDENCE 79 



Of the existing Versions, we have seen that we know 
a great deal about the history of the Latin, including the 
fact that in its earliest forms, considerable remains of which 
are extant, it belongs to the second and third centuries. We 
are sure that a Coptic translation of the Scriptures must have 
existed by the close of the second century; nor is there 
any reason to doubt that the two dialectic versions of that 
language, the Bohairic and Sahidic, are of nearly that 
antiquity. We know from external sources that a Syriac 
version existed as early as the second century, and that the 
Peshitto is at least as old as the early half of the fourth, if not 
the end of the third. The Gothic version we know to belong 
to the middle of the fourth ; the Armenian to the middle of 
the fifth ; the Philoxenian and Harkleian to the sixth and 
seventh centuries respectively. The problem of the relation 
to one another of the earlier Syriac versions, and the date of 
the ^Ethiopic, depend in part upon internal considerations, 
which have yet to be discussed. 

The dates of all the Patristic writings useful for our 
purposes are known historically. Consequently, where 
they have been edited critically, or where we meet with 
explicit statements in them regarding any given readings, 
there we have distinct evidence of the recognition of the 
reading in question in the time of the writer ; and in many 
cases his opinion upon the correctness or incorrectness of it. 

Some of this sort of evidence is of the second century ; 
a great deal of it belongs to the third and early fourth. It is 
desirable, however, to say a few words about the conditions 
under which the evidence of Versions and Fathers must be 
used. 

§ 2. Versions and Patristic Writings must be used 
cautiously. 

The primary use of Versions and Patristic writings is to 



8o DISCUSSION OF THE EVIDENCE 



fix dates and localities for the evidence supplied by the MSS. 
The enormous mass of manuscript authority, complicated as 
has been described in § r, is unmanageable. We want to 
have some clues in the maze ; we want, if possible, to know 
something of the history of the readings, their sources, and 
the places in which they were current. And it is just for 
this purpose that these auxiliary sources of evidence help us. 
The dates at which some of the Versions were made are at 
least approximately known, and the periods when, and the 
places where, the Patristic writers lived and wrote, are of 
course known. If then a certain reading is found in one of 
these authorities, there is a very high probability that it existed 
in the Greek MS., or MSS., from which the Version was 
made, or in the MS. from which the writer was quoting. 
Thus we get notes of time and place for a reading. If the 
date be early, and if several localities, particularly if they are 
distant from one another, can be fixed, the case for that 
reading becomes very strong. 

But the problem is still not so straightforward as it might 
seem at first sight. There are special difficulties belonging 
to each of these sources of evidence. And first, both of them 
are liable to be affected by the same errors of transmission as 
those already noted for Greek MSS., though not in the same 
way in the same places. In the case of Versions the 
problem is to determine what were the Greek words which 
the translator of the Version had before him. An erroneous 
decision might easily be made unless the critic understands 
the genius of the language and its capabilities for repre- 
senting exactly the Greek original ; or again, if he do not 
exactly appreciate the peculiarities of the translator, which 
can only be discovered by a pretty wide induction. For 
instance, it is possible for a Version to be periphrastic rather 
than verbally exact, to indulge in glosses and explanations, 
to use different words in different passages to represent the 



DERIVED FROM THE FOREGOING SOURCES 8 1 



same Greek word ; or conversely, the same one word to 
represent several different Greek words, or it may omit 
what was difficult or obscure to the translator. 

In the case of Quotations, it may make a difference whether 
they were made from memory or transcribed from a written 
copy. The latter is most likely in a controversial treatise ; the 
former in a sermon reported. In this case we may possibly 
get such phenomena as transposition of clauses of the passage 
cited, or combination of words from passages different but 
connected in thought, or change of grammatical construction 
due to the quotation being woven into the texture of the 
preacher's sentences, as a modern preacher frequently does. 

Another important consideration is this. Inasmuch as the 
New Testament was usually divided into four volumes, as we 
have already seen (p. 32), and these used separately, it is 
necessary to examine whether a Version exhibits the same 
characteristics in all its parts. Neither Versions nor codices 
are necessarily homogeneous. Different hands may have 
dealt with the different parts, and different originals may 
have been used to translate from, or to copy from. Similarly, 
in regard to Patristic writers. Did they use the same copy 
all through their lives? Does S. Chrysostom, for instance, 
when at Antioch use the same text as he uses when at 
Constantinople ? 

To discern and thread the way among such and other 
like delicate conditions requires wide knowledge and a trained 
and well-balanced judgment. 

§ 3. MSS., though independent of each other, are marked 
off by general features into groups. 

The question next arises, Is it possible, with this amount 
of actually dated evidence, to construct a history of the text, 
at any rate in broad outline ? Can we gain some general 
notions of the direction, so to speak, in which the text was 

HAMMOND q 



82 DISCUSSION OF THE EVIDENCE 



modified ? If we could fix but a few clear landmarks, we 
might be able to assign to any particular text, of otherwise 
unknown date, its historical place in the series with some 
degree of probability. We must now therefore turn our 
attention to the characteristics of the different texts pre- 
sented by these various authorities, and see what phenomena 
they exhibit. 

The first and most obvious feature is, that scarcely any 
two known MSS. show anything like complete verbal agree- 
ment. There are the few cases mentioned on p. 18 above. 
But the much-talked-of unanimity of the late, is just as 
imaginary as that of the early, authorities: that is, in any 
strict sense of the word. 

On the other hand, there may be noticed certain marked 
features which, in the judgment of all critics, are a sufficient 
ground for separating the existing authorities into tolerably 
well-defined groups; though not so minute as to exclude 
individual variations in the case of each separate MS. 

These special features are : — 
a. Peculiarities of spelling-, e.g. such forms as Xriptyopai, 
dvTiXrj n^eis, &c. ; v preserved unassimilated in words 
compounded with prepositions, as avvgqTeiv, avvfyyos, 
&c. ; v ifyekicva-TiKov, and the final s of ovtvs, &c, pre- 
served before consonants. The aspirate substituted for 
the tenuis in such cases as tytde, e<£' eXirftc, dfaXm&vres, 

k.t.A. Such forms as reo-o-epaKovra, oXtOpevav, e^tfes, for 
Teo-o-apaKovra, oXoOpevav, X@* s i an< ^ Others. 
£. Peculiar formation of inflexions : as paxalprjs, <nrelpr)? f for 
the Attic termination in -a? ; the accus. of nouns of third 
declension, and of adjectives, ending in -v, as darepav, 
X^lpav, firjvav, d(r4>a\i]v, 7ro8f)prjv, &c. ; neglect of the aug- 
ment in a few verbs beginning with a diphthong, as 
oiKo86p,r}o-a, cvxovto, &c. ; second aorists with first aor. 
terminations, as ei7ra, eWcra, rj\6a, &c. 



DERIVED FROM THE FOREGOING SOURCES 83 

y. Peculiarities of syntax : av for lav ; tva, idv, 6rav, &c, with 
the indicative; for which, as well as for abundant 
examples of the previous peculiarities, the reader is 
referred to Tischendorf s Prolegomena, and to Winer's 
Grammar. 

5. Certain characteristic readings, including variations in the 
order of words, omissions and interpolations of words, 
and even of clauses, which must be noticed more at 
length presently by themselves. 

§ 4. Three main groups commonly recognized by critics. 

That manuscript texts fall into several distinct groups, 
marked by the presence or absence of peculiarities of this 
sort, has been recognized by all the later critics. 

For just 200 years, from the time of the Cornplutensian 
editors and Erasmus down to Mill and Bentley, only the 
variations of MSS. were noted. The Textus Receptus was 
reprinted again and again, MSS. were collated and their 
various readings registered, but no comparison of them was 
attempted. Nor were editors to blame for this. Sufficient 
materials were as yet wanting. 

The next 140 years was a period in which materials were 
more systematically amassed and classified, and various 
theories of criticism propounded. Mill (d. 1707) led the 
way, pointing out the relative value of the three sources of 
evidence, and collecting immense stores of material of each 
kind. Bentley (d. 1742) very shortly afterwards pointed out 
the true mode of dealing with the available evidence; but 
* he was in advance both of the spirit of his age, and of the 
materials at his command/ and his labours were not brought 
to perfection. 

As soon as a sufficient mass of evidence was at the dis- 
posal of the critic to admit of comprehensive treatment, the 

G 2 



84 DISCUSSION OF THE EVIDENCE 



points of similarity as well as of divergence began to be 
noticed ; and it was soon seen that the authorities fell into 
groups. Two, three, and four groups have been distinguished 
by different critics ; and different hypotheses propounded to 
account for their origin. All alike have recognized a broad 
distinction between a comparatively small group, which includes 
the most ancient documents, together with some later uncials 
and a few cursives, and the group to which the great mass 
of more recent MSS. belong. Some critics go on to subdivide 
one or more of these. 

Bengel (d. 1752) would at first have subdivided the former 
of these and made three groups ; but finally he pronounced 
in favour of two, which he called African and Asiatic. 

Griesbach (d. 18 1 2) finally declared in favour of three 
groups, which he named Alexandrine, Western, and Byzan- 
tine. The two former of these would be subdivisions of 
Bengel's 'African' ; but Griesbach himself allowed that the 
line of demarcation between them was not rigid. The 
' Western ' group was intended to contain D and other Grseco- 
Latin codices, with the Latin versions. 

Hug (the first edition of his Einleitung was published in 
1808, the fourth in 1847) attempted a more subtle analysis, 
intended to exhibit the mode in which he thought the group- 
ing had arisen. He thought he could discern four groups ; 
one containing examples of an unrevised text, the other three 
being derived from this by independent revisions. Two of 
these, however, contain the chief part of our existing docu- 
ments, and in the main coincide with the groups of the twofold 
division. Eichhorn (18 18-18 2 7) agreed in Hug's scheme 
with some slight modifications. Scholz (1 830-1 836) returned 
to the simpler twofold division, naming his classes Alexandrine 
and Constantinopolitan. Lachmann (d. 1851) speaks of two 
groups, African and Byzantine. Tischendorf adopts a four- 
fold division in two pairs, naming them Alexandrine and Latin, 



DERIVED FROM THE FOREGOING SOURCES 85 



Astatic and Byzantine. Westcott and Hort also recognize 
four groups ; three belonging to a ( pre-Syrian ' stage of the 
text, which they call (a) Neutral, (3) Western, (7) Alexan- 
drian; and a fourth, (8) Syrian, due to authoritative recensions 
of the text at some time between 250 and 350 a.d. Of those 
(a) and (7) together would nearly coincide with Griesbach's 
Alexandrine, (3) with his Western, and (8) with his Byzantine. 
Nor shall we be very wrong if, for convenience' sake, in a 
rough classification we keep (a) and (7) together in one group, 
and call them 'Alexandrian! Hort's (7) is rather theoretical 
as a text. He acknowledges (Introd. § 203) that no single 
Greek MS. can be taken as a representative of it. Its readings 
are scholarlike improvements of language and phraseology 
rather than of matter (ibid. § 183). Dr. Salmon's suggestion 
is attractive, that we should call the Neutral ' Early Alexan- 
drian/ and the Alexandrian (7) ' Later Alexandrian.' Thus 
we finally recognize three groups : (1) the Western, extremely 
free in its handling of the subject-matter; (2) the Alexandrian, 
self-controlled and scholarlike ; (3) the Syrian, popular. It 
remains to see, if we can, what are the relations of these 
to one another. 

What is meant by this distinction of groups is that each 
of the documents composing them possesses certain general 
textual characteristics — a text of a certain marked type on 
the whole, — even though exhibiting some readings belonging 
to another type. The text of the larger Syrian group is more 
conformed in diction to ordinary classical Greek, and, in the 
passages referred to under the fourth head (§ 3, 8, above), 
presents the readings which we find in the Textus Receptus. 

§ 5. The Western Text. 

The relation of this group, or set of authorities, to the 
Alexandrian group is a matter of active discussion. Some 
think it primitive, some think that it is derived from the 



86 DISCUSSION OF THE EVIDENCE 



Alexandrian. Seeing that some of the peculiar readings 
exhibit a minute technical knowledge of Roman administra- 
tion, and others show an accurate acquaintance with Oriental 
geography and customs, a plausible suggestion has been 
made that Antioch may have been the birthplace of this text, 
as being the only city which was at once the seat of the 
Roman Government in Syria, a great commercial centre 
frequented by all classes of men, and an important centre 
of Christianity. 

We have said that its characteristics are interpolation, 
omission, and paraphrase. Examples of the sort of inter- 
polation referred to are, the ' pericope adulterae the insertion 

at S. Luke vi. 5 T V <*vtt} rjpepa 6eao~dp.ev6s riva epya^opevov tco 
(ra(3{3a.T(p einev avrto' avOpcone, el pev oidas n noiels pampios et' el 
$e prj oidas eniKaTaparos /ecu 7rapaj3a.Tr}s el tov vopov I the mention 
of a light at the Resurrection in Cod. K, descenderunt de coelis 
angeli et surgenties) in claritate vivi dei simul ascenderuni cum 
eo, et continua lux facta est; the addition at S. Mark iv. 9 Kal 6 
the prenomen ' Jesus ' of Barabbas inserted hi 
S. Matt, xxvii. 16 ; and in S. Luke xxiii. 48 the words, ' say- 
ing, Woe to us, what has been done : Woe to us for our sins! 
Examples of omission are : — S. Luke xxiv. 6, 1 He is not here, 
but is risen' v. 12 (the whole verse); v. 36, ' and saith unto 
them, Peace be unto you '; v. 40 (the whole verse). Examples 
of paraphrase : S. Luke xxiii. 53, we find in Cod. D, iireOrpcev 

T6) pvrjpelco \el60v bv poyis eiKoai eicvXiov S. John ii. 3 SOme of 

the Latin codices have ' it came to pass that because of the great 
multitude of guests the wine was spent! 

There was no homogeneous Western Text. The Latin 
section has interpolations and omissions of its own, and the 
Syrian section has its own interpolations and omissions, while 
there are also interpolations and omissions common to both 
branches. This looks as if different influences had been at 
work in different areas. To mark the two chief areas of 



DERIVED FROM THE FOREGOING SOURCES 87 

influence it is now proposed to use the name ' Syro-Latin ' 
instead of ' Western/ 

The authorities are, roughly speaking, distributed as follows : 
in the Western region of Christendom — Italy, Gaul, and North 
Africa — we have Cod. D, with Irenaeus and Justin Martyr ; 
the Latin MSS. (both of the African and European groups), 
backed by Cyprian and Tertullian, and later by Hilary, 
Lucifer, Optatus, and (to some extent) Augustine. In 
Egypt and the central region, Clement of Alexandria in 
the Gospels, and the Sahidic Version; and readings occa- 
sionally left in two or three uncials and a few minuscules ; 
testifying to the currency of this text at an early period, 
though its disappearance is more marked here than in either 
of the extreme regions. In the far East, the Curetonian and 
Sinaitic Syriac, backed by Aphraates and Ephraem, with 
apparently Tatian and the Armenian Version. 

The combined testimony of these witnesses goes to show that 
texts of this character were very widely and very early current. 
The history of their disappearance is for the most part un- 
known. In the Latin Versions, where the varieties of reading 
are so great as almost to justify the idea of S. Augustine that 
there had been a great number of free and independent trans- 
lators, the Vulgate Text of the definite recension of S. Jerome 
ultimately superseded them. That a similar process with some 
sort of authorization should have produced a similar effect else- 
where is a natural enough conjecture, and is held by many as 
the simplest explanation ; but it has not yet been demonstrated. 

For the present then we will leave this text, and proceed 
to consider the other two groups. 

§ 6. Examples of the proofs that the earlier type of text is to be 
found in the smaller group of witnesses. 

Between the remaining two groups it has to be shown that 
the type of text given by the first, though the smaller, of these 



88 DISCUSSION OF THE EVIDENCE 



groups is older than that of the other, which is numerically so 
much larger. In other words, the text which we should con- 
struct, if we take our authorities from the first group, will be 
nearer to that of the New Testament writers themselves than 
a text based upon the other group. This is proved by an 
inductive argument, depending upon a comparison of the 
readings of the two groups of MSS., in a number of passages 
where the true reading is given by indisputably early authori- 
ties, such as express citations of the early Patristic writers, 
and versions like the Vetus Latina, whose antiquity is above 
dispute. But when the characteristics of the oldest type 
of text have been determined by other evidence, and we 
find that a new Codex like the Sinaitic Syriac, or some 
newly found Greek MS., presents a text of this type, we 
may assume it into the group, and henceforth make use of 
its evidence to help in determining any doubtful questions 
that may remain. 

We proceed then to discuss a few such crucial passages by 
way of example. [The student is strongly recommended to 
work out the critical evidence of other passages than those 
which follow, with the help of some good critical edition of 
the Greek Testament a . Apart from the power thus gained 
of appreciating the value of the different kinds of evidence, 
it is only by such an exercise that it is possible to realize the 
force of the argument for preferring the text of the few older 
to that of the many late witnesses.] 

a. Let us first look at S. Matt. xix. 17. The Textus Receptus 

reads tl fie Xeyeis ayadov ' ovdels ayaObs el ftfj els, 6 Qeos, 

which is the unquestioned reading in the parallel passages 
S. Mark x. 18 ; S. Luke xviii. 19. The alternative read- 
ing in S. Matthew is rl fie epcoras nepi rov ayadov ; els icrriv 

a e.g. S. Matt, xviii. 35; S. Mark iii. 29; S. Luke viii. 9 and 20; 
S. John v. 16 ; vi. 51 ; ix. 8 and 26 ; x. 33 ; Acts xv. 24; Rom. v. 1 ; 
xiv. 9 ; 1 Cor. ii. 4 ; vii. 5, &c. 



DERIVED FROM THE FOREGOING SOURCES 89 



6 dyados : the very existence of which, backed by any good 
support, would be a strong prima facie argument for its 
genuineness, on the principle laid down at p. 110. Now 
let us see what the evidence is. Not to go into extreme 
minutiae, it will be found that the reading of the Textus 
Receptus is supported by C $ 2 of the old MSS. ; by 
the later uncials and almost all the minuscules : by /"and 
q of the Vetus Latina ; by the Peshitto and Harkleian 
{text) of the Syriac versions ; and by the Sahidic : also 
by Hilary, Optatus, Ambrose, and Chrysostom, with the 
main body of the later Patristic writers. For the other 
reading, the first clause is supported by K B [D] b L, 
1, 22, [251], 604 : by nine codices of the Vetus Latina, 
and the Vulgate ; by the Jerusalem Syriac, the Bohairic, 
and the Armenian versions : by Eusebius, Jerome, and 
others of the Fathers : Origen and S. Augustine mention 
it expressly in these words : 6 plv ovv Marddios cos nepl 

dyadov epyov ipcorijOevros rod crcoTrjpos iv rco, Tt dyadov 7roirjo~a> ', 
dveypayjrev. 6 Se Mapicos Kai Aovkcls (pacrl rbv o~coTr}pa elprjKevai 
t'l p,€ Xeyeis dyaOov * ovSety dyados el prj els, 6 Qeos and de 

illo divite . . . potest videri distare aliquid, quod secundum 
MatthcBum dicitur, Quid me interrogas de bono ? secundum 
illos autem (sc. S. Mark and S. Luke) Quid me dicis 
bonum ? . . . , &c. The rov is omitted by D. 
The second clause is supported by N B [D] L (1), 22, 
[251], 604; by seven codices of the Vetus Latina, and 
the Vulgate; by the Jerusalem Syriac, the Bohairic, 
and Armenian. 6 is omitted by D and 1. This clause 
is not so expressly supported by any Patristic writer as 
the first ; but it occurs very distinctly in Irenaeus, though 
in combination with the Textus Receptus version of the 



b When an authority is quoted in brackets, it is implied that its 
evidence is only partial ; as here, D, by the omission of rov, is not in 
strict accordance with n and B. 



90 DISCUSSION OF THE EVIDENCE 



first clause. Several authorities give a mixed edition of 
the passage, one clause in accordance with one form, the 
other clause in accordance with the other form, as the 
Harkleian Syriac (margin), the ^Ethiopic, two codices of 
the Vetus Latina; Eusebius, Irenaeus, and Justin Martyr; 
while the minuscule MS. 251 gives both the forms in 
full, that of the Textus Receptus first, and then the 
other. Such evidence as this points unmistakably to 
the existence of an antecedent variation. The evidence 
of Origen and S. Augustine is express as to a difference 
between S. Matthew's account and those of S. Mark 
and S. Luke. Among those authorities which present 
a different form of the passage in S. Matthew from that 
in the parallel passages are included nearly all the very 
earliest. The reading here given by K and B seems to 
have been current before the time of Irenaeus and Justin 
Martyr, and before the formation of the Vetus Latina : 
that is to say, we are carried back at least to the begin- 
ning of the second century; which is an earlier date 
than can be claimed by any authority for the common 
reading of this passage. 

Further, it must be remembered that it is in accordance 
with the observed tendency of copyists to alter one 
passage into conformity with another parallel passage. 
It is not their habit to introduce discrepancies. 

And, once more, let us consider that on no intelligible 
principle can it be assumed that the passage has been 
tampered with on theological grounds; for then why 
were the two parallel passages left, as they are, without 
any suspicion of a variation ? 

On the whole, we must conclude that in this passage those 
authorities which differ from the Textus Receptus give 
us the earlier and truer text. 
/3. In S. Matt. xv. 8 the Textus Receptus reads [Zyyi&i /xot] 



DERIVED FROM THE FOREGOING SOURCES 91 



6 Xaos ovtos [to) o-TO/xaTi avrcov kcu] tois ^fiXeo-i /xe rt/xa, 
which is scarcely varied from the LXX. of Isa. xxix. 13. 
This is the reading of C and most of the later uncials, 
and almost all the minuscules ; of f alone among the 
Latin versions, and of the Harkleian Syriac. On the 
other hand, the words which are enclosed in square 
brackets are omitted by N B D L T c , 33, 124; by all 
the Latin versions (except f \ the Curetonian, Peshitto, 
Bohairic, Armenian, and Ethiopia The Patristic evi- 
dence is for the omission ; Origen saying expressly, 
after quoting the passage in full from Isaiah, ml irpodno- 
fxiv ye on ovk aural? Xe^eaiv aveypa^rev 6 MarOcuos to TrpocpTj- 

TIKOV. 

Thus here again we find the same smaller group of MSS. 
presenting that reading for which there is express 
authority in an early writer, and very early support from 
the versions. Besides, it is a well-known tendency of the 
copyists to supply defects in quotations, 
y. The case is as nearly as possible the same in S. Matt. xx. 

2 2 dvvaa6e mew to TroTrjpiov o eyco p,e\X(o mveiv, [koi to /3a- 
ivTio-p.a b eyoj PcnrTt£opai (3a7rTia6rjvai ;]. Here again Origen 
expressly says that the latter clause is in S. Mark, and 
not in S. Matthew. In S. Mark all our authorities give 
it without variation : in S. Matthew it is omitted by N B 
D L Z, 1, 22 ; by almost all the codices of the Vetus 
Latina, and the Vulgate, by the Curetonian Syriac, the 
Bohairic, the Sahidic, and ^Ethiopic. It is found in C, 
with the later MSS., uncials and minuscules; in the 
Peshitto and Harkleian Syriac, and in the Armenian, 
with fh and q of the Vetus Latina. 
The same considerations as in the previous case will 
govern our choice of the reading, about which there 
is no room to doubt. 
h. Even readings that are undoubtedly erroneous may help to 



92 DISCUSSION OF THE EVIDENCE 



show the antiquity of the documents in which they occur : 
e.g. after S. Matt. xx. 28, there is found in D, and 3>, in 
the Curetonian, and one codex of the Harkleian (margin) 
Syriac, in eight codices of the Vetus Latina, and in a 
few of the Vulgate, but in no other Greek MS. or early 
version, an extensive interpolation c , which may be seen 
in Scrivener's Introduction (in the Greek form, II. p. 330; 
in English, I. p. 8). There are numberless variations in 
these authorities, and S. Jerome has rejected it. There 
is no doubt that it is an interpolation ; but since it was 
certainly current in the second century, and rejected in 
the fourth, the text exhibited by any document containing 
it would probably be very ancient. 
e. A very instructive passage to examine is S. Luke xi. 2-4, 
containing that Evangelist's account of the Lord's Prayer. 
As read in a modern critical edition of the Greek Testa- 
ment, it will be found to want three clauses, which occur 
in the form as given by S. Matthew : viz. rjn&v 6 iv toLs 

ovpavois, yevT)6r)Tco to OeXrjpa aov cos iv ovpavco Kai inl ttjs yrjs, 
and aXXa pvcrai rjfxas dno rov Ttovqpov. 

For the insertion of the first of these clauses entire the 
authorities are A C D with about fifteen other uncials, 
and most of the minuscules; b d efl q (r) 8 of the Vetus 
Latina; the Curetonian, Peshitto, and Hark. Syriac, the 
Bohairic, and the ^Ethiopic. L, one minuscule, one 
early copy of the Vulgate, and the Armenian version 
support f)fi5>p only. Four copies of the Vetus Latina 
and one of the Vulgate give sancte instead of noster. 
No. 33 seems to favour 6 iv roh ovpavois but not ^ajj/. 
For the omission entire are N B, 1, 22, 57, 130, and 346 ; 
with all the chief MSS. of the Vulgate but two ; as well 
as the express testimony of Origen, and of a scholion in 

c This passage is much in evidence in discussions on the Syro-Latin 
(Western) Text, and the connection of Tatian's work with it. 



DERIVED FROM THE FOREGOING SOURCES 93 



some of the MSS. Origen's words are, exovcri 8e at \e£eis 
tov pev Mardaiov .... Ilarep f]p5>v 6 iv . . . . rov Se Aovko. 
ovtoos, ndrep ayia(r6r}Ta> .... k.t.X. Tertullian's testimony 
seems also to favour the omission. Now strong as the 
evidence for the full form seems at first sight, it is much 
weakened, first by the variations also attested, and then 
by the deliberate rejection of the clause from the Latin 
in S. Jerome's Vulgate. Against this and the express 
assertion of Origen it cannot stand ; especially when we 
remember that the tendency of copyists to supply sup- 
posed deficiencies would be likely to be stronger than 
ever here, where the longer form was so familiar from 
constant public and private use. 

We then pass to the clause yevrjdrjTco to 6eXt]pd (rov a>s ev 
oipavco Kal eVi rrj: yrjs, which is wanting in B L, I, 22, 
130, 346 ; ff 2 of the Vetus Latina ; the Vulgate except 
four, the Curetonian Syriac, and the Armenian. There 
is also most express testimony of Origen, Tertullian, and 
S. Augustine for the omission in S. Luke; Origen 
and S. Augustine drawing attention to the contrast 
between his form and S. Matthew's. The presence 
of the clause is attested by A C D &c, and most of 
the minuscules ; by the chief codices of the Vetus 
Latina ; by the Peshitto and Harkleian Syriac, the 
Bohairic and ^Ethiopic. There are slight variations 
here too between the different witnesses ; and the same 
marked disagreement between the Vetus Latina and the 
Vulgate of S. Jerome. In fact, on the whole the same 
remarks apply here as in the previous case. 

For the third clause, dXXa pvaai Tj/xds diro rov irovqpov, the 
authorities are (n c ) A C D &c. ; seven codices of 
the Vetus Latina ; the Peshitto and Hark. Syriac ; the 
Bohairic, and the ^Ethiopic : ranged against which are X* 
B L, 1, 22, 57, and fourteen other minuscules; several 



94 DISCUSSION OF THE EVIDENCE 



MSS. of the Vetus Latina, the Vulgate, and Armenian ; 
with the express testimony of Origen, Cyril, and 
S. Augustine, and apparently that of Tertullian. Here 
again the verdict of the recent critical editors is in favour 
of omitting the clause. 
It is pertinent to observe that an omission, so strongly 
attested as this is, of three important clauses, in a 
formulary so well known and cherished as the Lord's 
Prayer, is utterly inexplicable on the hypothesis that 
S. Matthew's form is the only genuine one. We can 
easily understand the importation of the clauses, either 
from another Gospel or from a well-known liturgical 
formula, into a less familiar and seemingly abridged 
form, like that of S. Luke ; but neither accident nor 
intention can adequately account for such clear evi- 
dence as there is in favour of so large an omission, if 
S. Luke's Gospel had originally contained the clauses 
in question. 

These five instances are samples of a vast number d of 
others, by means of which it is shown that the true text is on 
the whole to be sought for in the smaller of the two groups 
of MSS., not indeed existing unimpaired in any single docu- 
ment, but capable of being elicited by a careful comparison 
of all. It must be borne in mind, however, that these in- 
stances are but samples, and that the value of the induction 
rests upon the number of instances discussed. A conclusion 
drawn from a few might easily be erroneous. For instance, 
it might be thought from the examples above given that C is 
commonly opposed to K and B, and in harmony with the 
Textus Receptus; whereas on the whole the contrary is true. 

Dr. Tregelles sums up the results of his investigation as 
follows (Account of the Printed Text, p. 148): — 

d Dr. Tregelles estimates that there are between two and three 
thousand. (On the Printed Text, p. 148, note.) 



DERIVED FROM THE FOREGOING SOURCES 95 



' Readings whose antiquity is proved apart from MSS. are 
found in repeated instances in a few of the extant copies.' 

' These few MSS., the text of which is thus proved to be 
ancient, include some (and often several) of the oldest MSS. 
extant/ 

'In some cases the attested reading is found in but one 
or two MSS., but those of the most ancient class.' 

' And as certain MSS. are found, by a process of inductive 
proof, to contain an ancient text, their character as witnesses 
must be considered to be so established, that in other places 
their testimony deserves peculiar weight/ 

The same conclusions mutatis mutandis will hold of course 
with respect to the text exhibited by those versions whose 
dates are not known independently. 

Dr. Hort, approaching the problem from the other side, 
proves that the text of the larger group, which he calls Syrian, 
is posterior to the others by the following three arguments. 

1. The Syrian text presents numerous instances of read- 
ings, which, according to all textual probability, must be 
considered to be combinations of earlier readings still extant 
(Introd. §§ 1 3 2-1 51). 

2. From a careful analysis of Ante-Nicene patristic evi- 
dence it appears that, though there are instances of the 
various types of pre-Syrian readings, there are no historical 
traces of distinctively Syrian readings before the middle of 
the third century (Introd. §§ 152-162). 

3. Internal evidence gives its verdict on the whole in the 
same direction. 'Often/ says Dr. Hort, 'either the Transcrip- 
tional 6 or the Intrinsic evidence is neutral or divided, and 
occasionally the two kinds of evidence appear to be in con- 
flict. But there are, we believe, no instances where both are 
clearly in favour of the Syrian reading, and innumerable where * 
both are clearly adverse to it' (Introd. §§ 163-168). 

6 See below, p. 112. 



g6 DISCUSSION OF THE EVIDENCE 



It is right to add that this reasoning is called in question 
by Dr. Scrivener in his Introduction, Vol. II, pp. 287-297. 

§ 7. An order traceable among the various documentary 
witnesses. 

Amid the variations of different witnesses a certain order 
seems traceable. It is true that we must not speak of a pure 
Alexandrian, or of a pure Syrian text, as facts. There is 
no extant MS. exhibiting to us either one or the other. But 
this is a convenient, and not necessarily misleading, mode 
of describing the tendencies of the two main groups of wit- 
nesses ; the normal types of which, as we contend, represent 
respectively an early and a late stage of one and the same text. 
The links between the normal types may be in some measure 
supplied by examples in which we see Alexandrian and 
Syrian readings mixed in various degrees. The manuscripts 
in which this phenomenon occurs most markedly are of the 
fifth and sixth centuries. After the eighth century only a few 
copies here and there present Alexandrian readings. From 
this we might infer that during this period the text was under- 
going a gradual transition. This hypothesis is confirmed 
by other evidence. In quotations by S. Chrysostom (fourth 
century) we find readings which agree with the Cod. Brixianus 
(f)t and with the Gothic version, but which are not known to 
Origen, and do not agree with the earliest versions. This 
points to the late third or early fourth century as the period 
when the text was chiefly modified. We shall see presently 
good reason for thinking just this period to have been the 
most important in the history of the Greek text. (See 
Westcott and Hort's Introd. §§ 188-198; Smith's Diet. Bib., 
art. 'New Test.,' p. 510, § 15.) 

Thus then, by the mutual comparison of ecclesiastical 
writers of various dates, with the versions, whose dates we 



DERIVED FROM THE FOREGOING SOURCES 97 



also know, and the earliest transcribed MSS., we believe that 
we are able to show that a certain change passed over the 
text ; because the whole set of phenomena are most easily 
explicable on the supposition that the so-called Alexandrian 
type of text is the earlier one and the Syrian the later, not 
on the contrary supposition. These are the grounds on which 
the Peshitto has been adjudged to be posterior to the Cure- 
tonian and Sinaitic Syriac, and these latter versions to be of 
the earliest possible date ; which confirm the otherwise highly 
probable antiquity of the Bohairic and Sahidic ; and on which 
such cursives as 1 and 33 are quoted as of higher authority 
than many uncials. 



HAMMOND 



H 



CHAPTER VII 



HISTORICAL CONSIDERATIONS 

We have arrived so far at the following conclusions. There 
are three main types of text to be discerned : — (i) The 
western (we will keep this name for shortness), marked by 
interpolations, omissions, and a tendency to paraphrase, of 
very early date, but disappearing from use soon and, except 
among the Latin copies, almost suddenly. (2) The 
Alexandrian, with a careful text, free from these Western 
traits, and in its later form showing symptoms of skilful, 
scholarlike treatment, chiefly in the matter of its language ; 
early in time, and gradually superseded. (3) The Syrian, 
lucid and complete, with some additions inserted, and pro- 
nouns, conjunctions, and various links of thought supplied, so 
as to run smoothly ; later in time, but at last overwhelmingly 
predominant. 

The origin of the Western text is, as we have said, 
doubtful. Its peculiar features are mostly apparent in the 
Gospels and Acts, the historical books of the New Testament: 
and but slightly in the Epistles, which were wholly the 
outcome of the writers' original thought. Now the Synoptic 
Gospels very possibly had for a basis the antecedent oral 
tradition, if not some embodiment of that oral tradition in 
writing. S. Luke certainly embodies extracts from written 
documents in his books. Hence it has been suggested that 
the special features of the Western text are due to those 
earlier sources used more or less freely. 



HISTORICAL CONSIDERATIONS 99 



The Alexandrian text is attested chiefly by the Alexandrian 
Fathers — Clement, Origen, Cyril Alex., and a few others: 
and but sparingly beyond the influence of the Alexandrian 
Church. 

The Syrian text does not find any real attestation till later. 
The ante-Nicene Patristic support adduced by Prebendary 
Miller (Traditional Text, Chap. v. § 2), to show that the 
Traditional text was primitive, does not prove his point. 
It has been shown (Church Quarterly Review, No. 85, 
pp. 243 ff.) that in at least every one of his thirty select 
examples the reading of his Traditional text is also common 
to the Western text, and therefore is not 'distinctively 
Syrian/ but is confessedly early. To prove his point as 
against the Alexandrian text, the readings chosen should 
be such as are neither Western nor Alexandrian ; for 
attestation of both these classes of readings may be expected 
in ante-Nicene writings. The Syrian is an eclectic text, 
such as might be derived from the early Alexandrian text 
as a basis, with some Western readings interpolated, and 
such modifications of the text as we have mentioned above. 
Some definite action, such as a recension by some scholar, 
or school of learned men, would most naturally account 
for such a type of text, and for its appearance at a certain 
epoch. That there should be no record of such a recension 
is perhaps strange, but not necessarily fatal to the hypothesis. 
The similarity of character found in Lucian's recension of 
the LXX has suggested Antioch and the Antiochian School 
founded by Lucian as a possible place and agent for such 
a recension of the New Testament. 

Then further, the fourth century was a remarkable one 
in the history of the Christian Church, and produced 
conditions peculiarly favourable to the multiplication and 
dissemination of a text such as this in preference to one of 
the early Alexandrian type. I 

H 2 



IOO HISTORICAL CONSIDERATIONS 



Perhaps the most important event in the whole political 
history of the Church has been the formal recognition of 
Christianity by Constantine in the early part of this century 
(Edict of Milan, 313 a.d.), followed up by his favour to it, 
and ultimate adoption of it. Now let us try to imagine the 
probable effect upon a state of society, whose religious con- 
victions were of the weakest conceivable kind, when a form 
of religion was placed before it, recommended with all the 
influence that attaches to the court of an absolute Emperor ; 
and that, in the new capital, Constantinople, which had no 
time-honoured associations of its own, like those of pagan 
Rome, powerful to hold men captive to the old religions. 
Hitherto the profession of Christianity had involved an almost 
certain risk of persecution, perhaps of martyrdom. Now it 
became fashionable to be a Christian ; and there are multi- 
tudes in every age with whom such a motive is quite sufficient. 
The ranks of the Christians would be rapidly recruited : and 
one consequence of this, and of the legalization of public 
Christian worship, would be a considerable and sudden 
demand for copies of the Christian Scriptures. On the other 
hand, the difficulty of supplying the demand was enhanced 
by the wholesale destruction of the books during the perse- 
cutions of Diocletian (accession 284, abdication 305 a.d.). 
Now, bear in mind what were the conditions of the case. 
Here is a book, of which copies were in circulation differing 
a good deal in text from one another, some more scholarlike, 
but, when compared with others, apparently deficient in 
certain features; and these others rugged and provincial 
but more picturesque. This book has to be suddenly and 
rapidly multiplied to meet the demands of a fashionable 
capital and empire for public and private uses. What might 
we reasonably expect to find? Surely something not very 
unlike what has been suggested — as soon as possible there 
would be a revision, taking the more scholarlike text as the 



HISTORICAL CONSIDERATIONS 10 1 



basis, engrafting on it some points from the other text, and 
then smoothing and polishing the whole. No sufficient proof, 
we hold, has yet been given that there had ever existed one 
text with any sort of authority ; nor had there arisen as yet 
any special veneration for a verbal uniformity of text as 
sacred. And then would follow the multiplication of copies 
by professional copyists, working with professional accuracy, 
but mechanically and subject to the chances of error of mere 
copyists — copies made perhaps of necessity from imperfect 
and differing exemplars, and then corrected more or less 
carefully by some approved standard copy or copies. Would 
not the result be very much like what the evidence discloses, 
viz: — the rougher form practically disappearing, though in 
the earlier stage a certain mixture of text is still found ; but 
the more refined text coming more and more into vogue, and 
copies of it becoming more common? The preference for the 
latter text is vividly illustrated when we find at a later period 
codices like B and the Claromontanus corrected throughout 
at the cost of immense trouble from the Alexandrian readings 
to the more Classical forms of the ' Syrian ' text. 

It is no less easy to account for the existence of so many 
more MSS. of the Syrian than of the Alexandrian type. 
The Syrian text became predominant in Antioch in the 
fourth century, and in the same century the influence of 
Antioch was transferred to Constantinople, which soon 
became the centre of Eastern Christendom. The West 
meanwhile became by degrees more and more exclusively 
Latin-speaking, and Latin instead of Greek MSS. were 
in request. At the same time the Greek MSS. that had 
existed perished in the destructive ravages of the barbarians 
without being replaced, thus doubtless many non-Syrian 
Greek MSS. disappeared. For a while of course in the 
Greek-speaking East the old centres of multiplication of 
copies — Alexandria, Antioch, and Caesarea — remained in 



102 



HISTORICAL CONSIDERATIONS 



activity as well as Constantinople ; and thus, from the 
comparison and correction of one copy by another, various 
sorts of mixed readings might easily get into circulation. 
But after the Mohammedan conquest of Egypt and Syria 
(633-639 a. d.), Constantinople remained the sole head of 
Eastern orthodox Christianity for 800 years, until its capture 
in 1453 > during all which time the copies produced would all 
naturally be of the favoured and favourite type. 

Thus, possibly the phenomena exhibited by the extant MSS. 
may be accounted for. 

The relation thus shown to exist between the early Alex- 
andrian type and the later Syrian type of text is the justi- 
fication of the remark at the end of Chapter I, which at first 
sight seems startling ; namely, that we are warranted in re- 
fusing any authority to the Textus Receptus as such. We 
are now more prepared to accept a text formed upon those 
documents, MSS., Versions, and Patristic writings, which 
we have seen contain the earliest type of text: we do not 
look for unanimity in the documents from which we propose 
to elicit the true text : we do not expect to find the true text 
complete in any single MS., or even any set of MSS. All 
the different sources of evidence have to be laid under con- 
tribution. Yet no one need be afraid that any uncertainty 
is thereby introduced into the sacred text, or the slightest 
doubt thrown upon any single doctrine whatsoever. The 
same investigations which justify this course of proceeding 
indicate clearly enough the proper mode of handling the 
materials placed before us. The result being that, except in 
a very few places, critical editors would be found to give 
practically the same text ; and those few places would be of 
no real dogmatic significance. The truth is, that no doctrine 
of Christianity is founded on isolated passages of the Bible. 
To argue as if it were so would indicate entire misapprehen- 
sion of the grounds of our faith. 



HISTORICAL CONSIDERATIONS 103 



Moreover, if these principles of dealing with the text seem 
to take away something with one hand, they give back some- 
thing at least as valuable with the other. The same method 
which expunges the passage concerning the Heavenly Wit- 
nesses, and denies the reputed authorship of the Pericope 
Adulter cb, establishes, at any rate, the canonicity of this passage, 
and places beyond all reasonable doubt the authenticity of 
S. Luke xxii. 43, 44. The often-quoted words of Bentley 
are as true now as when he wrote them : ' Make your thirty 
thousand (various readings) as many more a , if numbers of 
copies can ever reach that sum : all the better to a knowing 
and serious reader, who is thereby more richly furnished to 
select what he sees genuine. But even put them into the 
hands of a knave or a fool, and yet, with the most sinistrous 
and absurd choice, he shall not extinguish the light of any 
one chapter, nor so disguise Christianity but that every feature 
of it will still be the same.' 

These considerations too seem to dispose of one argument 
that has been brought against those critics who lean upon 
the authority of the few and oldest MSS. It has been said 
that on their principles the Truth of Scripture has run a very 
narrow risk of being lost for ever to mankind ; for Cod. B has 
lain till now more than half concealed in the Vatican ; and 
Cod. X had found its way into a waste-paper basket, when it 
was rescued by Tischendorf. And the critic proceeds, ' We 
incline to believe that the Author of Scripture hath not by 
any means shown Himself so unmindful of the safety of the 
Deposit as these learned persons imagine.' Surely there is 
a confusion here between the Deposit and the outer covering 
in which the Deposit has been handed down. Unless it can 
be pointed out that the fullness of any single doctrine is 
impaired by accepting the one text rather than the other, 

a 150,000 is the number now computed ('The Traditional Text,' 
Pref. p. xiii). 



104 HISTORICAL CONSIDERATIONS 



surely we shall be right in maintaining that the true lesson 
to be learned is that God has been wonderfully careful of the 
Deposit — the Sacred Truth — the substance of His revelation, 
which is not impaired, amid the manifold variety of readings : 
while at the same time He has not been so careful of the 
casket, the bare letter, in which the jewel has been enshrined, 
perhaps for the very purpose of teaching us that the one is 
not of the same eternal consequence as the other. 



APPENDIX A 



ON CANONS OF CRITICISM 



It remains to notice some principles of criticism which 
have guided different critics in their task of deciding between 
the claims of conflicting readings. With regard to their 
value, it must be borne in mind that they are inferences 
rather than axiomatic principles. They are the recorded 
results of the comparison and interrogation of a large mass 
of documents of various kinds. Further, they belong to the 
region of probable evidence. Some of them admit of being 
more widely applied than others, and none of them could 
with safety be applied universally. By a well-known con- 
vention the value of such statements may be represented by 
a proper fraction, determined in each case according to the 
observed facts. For instance, let us suppose that the value 
of one of these principles is represented by the fraction 
This means that it may be expected to hold true in seventeen 
cases out of every twenty; but then, if rigidly applied, it 
would lead to a wrong result in three cases out of every 
twenty. A further result, based upon mathematical prin- 
ciple, is that if two propositions each of them probable are 
combined as premisses, and a conclusion drawn from them, 
the conclusion has a still less degree of probability. Hence 
these canons must be applied with caution, and in combination 
with other evidence. 

The student must above all things beware of supposing 



io6 



ON CANONS OF CRITICISM 



that there is any possibility of a mere arithmetical adjust- 
ment of the claims of conflicting readings. In estimating the 
probability of a various reading having arisen from some 
particular cause, which may vary in different MSS. according 
to the observed idiosyncrasies of the scribe; and in com- 
paring the different kinds of evidence, external and internal, 
for and against conflicting readings ; apart from the practical 
acquaintance with the work of collating MSS., there must 
always be ample scope for the highest critical acumen, as 
well as for the most highly trained perception of the value 
of evidence. 

It seems almost superfluous to affirm that every element of 
evidence must be allowed its full weight '; but it is a principle 
that must not be forgotten. 

Then, with reference to the External Evidence, such canons 
as the following have been laid down : — 

1. The combined testimony of the earliest MSS. with the 

earliest versions, and quotations in the earliest writers, 
marks an undoubted reading. 

2. In estimating the value of conflicting evidence, great 

weight must be given to the testimony of witnesses 
from localities widely separated from each other. 
Such testimony will outweigh that given by witnesses 
of one class, or coming from one locality, even though 
these may be numerically superior: and it can be 
satisfactorily met only by a counter consensus of 
witnesses from different localities. 

3. It may be laid down generally that mere numerical 

preponderance of witnesses of one kind is of very 
little weight. 

4. The relative weight of the three classes of evidence 

differs for different sorts of errors: therefore there 
can be no mere mechanical determination of the 



ON CANONS OF CRITICISM 



107 



Text, by always taking the verdict of two out of 
the three classes, or by any other similar short and 
easy method. 

5. Disagreement of the ancient authorities often marks 

the existence of a corruption anterior to them. 

6. The ancient reading is generally the reading of the more 

ancient manuscripts. 

7. Dr. Nestle (pp. 240, 241) enforces the importance of 

paying more attention than has usually been given 

(1) to the influence of the ecclesiastical use of Scripture; 

(2) to Proper Names, the substitutions of one for 
another found in some authorities, variations of no- 
menclature and even of spelling. (For an instance 
of an inference founded on the spelling see above, 
P- 52-) 

Of canons relating to Internal Evidence the following are 
specimens a : — 

1 . Brevior lectio praferenda verbosiori. This is Griesbach's 
first canon. It rests on the well-known tendency of 
transcribers, already before alluded to, to include in 
the text all marginal notes, glosses, &c, found in their 
copy ; nothing, if possible, being omitted. This canon 
has additional probability in cases where the shorter 
reading is harsher than the other, or elliptical, or 
obscure ; for then there is the possibility of the longer 
reading being an intentional alteration; or again, if 

a It must be borne in mind that this list is not intended to be 
exhaustive. Every critical editor has laid down his own principles, 
of which it will generally be found that some cover the same ground as 
those of other editors, though differently worded ; others depend upon 
the particular theories of the editor himself. The object of these pages 
being to give the beginner a general notion of the subject, only a few 
examples have been selected, of those most widely agreed upon, as 
illustrations of the mode of dealing with the evidence. 



ON CANONS OF CRITICISM 



there is in addition a variation between the readings 
of the codices, either in the phraseology, or in the 
order of words; or again, at the commencement of 
passages appointed as Church Lections. 

On the other hand, there are considerations which may 
sometimes cause a preference of the longer reading, 
e. g. if a homoioteleuton may have occurred ; if the 
words omitted might seem to a scribe superfluous, 
harsh, or contrary to a pious belief ; or if the shorter 
reading seem to be out of harmony with the writer's 
style, or devoid of meaning. But such considerations 
must be used with great caution. 

Examples of cases for the application of this canon 
have been given at pp. 91-94. See also the remarks 
on p. 25. 

. Proclivi lectiont prcBstat ardua. This was first laid down 
by Bengel. It depends upon the tendency of tran- 
scribers to alter (in perfect good faith, and fancying 
that they were doing a good work) something they 
did not understand into something which they did. 
It is of very wide application, but requires great 
circumspection in its use, for it may easily be over- 
pressed. Among lectiones arduce will be included 
some cases of solecism or unusual readings, rare or 
irregular usages of words, hebraisms, substitutions of 
less definite for more definite expressions (but here 
great caution is needed), cases of want of connection, 
&c. This principle renders diKaioavvrjv for iXerjfioavvrjv 
(S. Matt. vi. 1), and afxapTrj^aros for KpLo-eas (S. Mark 
iii. 29), the more probable reading. It is an argu- 
ment for those who would insert 6 Geo's (Rom. viii. 
28), though in this case the diplomatic evidence on 
the other side is too strong. 
Griesbach laid down a maxim which would be covered 



ON CANONS OF CRITICISM 



109 



by this one ; prceferatur aliis lectio cui subest sensus ap- 
par enter falsus, qui vero re penitus examinata verus esse 
deprehenditur. An illustration of this may be taken 
from Tregelles' Printed Text, pp. 203, 204. In the 

text, I Cor. xi. 29, 6 yap laQLcov kcli tt'lvoov (ava^t'co?) Kplfia 
tavTco icrO'iti /cat nivet p.rj diaKpivcov to aa>p.a } the word 

dvagias is wanting in the best authorities ; and its 
absence may at first sight cause a little difficulty, as 
long as the wrong impression remains upon one's 
mind, caused by the mistranslation in the English 
Version of the negative m as if it were ov. Translate 
this accurately, and the difficulty vanishes : ' He that 
eateth and drinketh eateth and drifiketh judgment to 
himself if he do not distinguish the Body' The clause 
/LIJ7 biaKpLvwv to acop-a belongs to the words 6 eV#iW 
ml rrivav, and is placed last for emphasis' sake. The 
tov Kvplov of the Textus Receptus is also wanting 
in the best authorities, but its absence can cause no 
difficulty, inasmuch as the word o-co/xa has occurred 
just before in connection with tov Kvplov (ver. 27), and 
can therefore have but one meaning, dvaglws might 
have crept into the text from a marginal gloss intended 
to connect the p.rj diaKplvav to aa>p.a of ver. 29 with the 
dvagtco? of ver. 27. 
3. That reading is to be preferred which will explain the 
origin of the variations. (Tisch. Prol. pp. 53, 63, 
8th ed.) A good illustration of this may be quoted 
from Tischendorf, though brought forward by him to 
illustrate a different principle. ' The common reading 

in S. Mark ii. 2 2 is 6 oivos €<x^Tai kcu oi da<o\ dnoXovvrai, 

which is perfectly simple in itself, and the undoubted 
reading in the parallel passage of S. Matthew. But 
here there are great variations. One important MS. 
(L) reads 6 olvos eKx^Tai Kal ol da-KOL : another (D with 



no 



ON CANONS OF CRITICISM 



It.* 3 ) 6 olvos Kai avKoi cmokovvrai : another (B) 6 oivos 

diroXKvTai Kai oi daKoi Here, if we bear in mind the 
reading in S. Matthew, it is morally certain that 
the text of B is correct. This may have been 
changed into the common text, but cannot have 
arisen out of it/ This principle supplies an argu- 
ment for adopting 6? as the true reading (i Tim. 
iii. 1 6) ; since both ec and O can more easily have 
been derived from OC, than either OC and O from ec , 
or OC and ec from O. 
Closely connected with this is another principle laid down 
by Tischendorf, that a reading which savours of being 
an intentional correction is to be suspected, notwith- 
standing that it may be supported by a majority of the 
witnesses of one class. For, in such a case, inspection 
of the true reading will suggest the mode in which 
the correction was applied. One of Tischendorfs 
examples is inoirjo-ev in S. Matthew xxv. 16, which 
he considers the true reading for eKepbrjaev. Tregelles, 
on the other hand, and Westcott and Hort think that 
the diplomatic evidence for eKepdrjaep is too weighty 
to be set aside. (Treg. Gk. Test, in loc. ; Diet, of 
Bible, vol. ii. p. 530; Tisch. Proleg. pp. 53, 56, 
8th ed.) 

4. In parallel passages, whether quotations from the Old 
Testament, or different narratives of the same event, 
that reading is prima facie to be preferred which gives 
a verbal dissidence, rather than a verbally concordant 
reading. Instances of this principle have been 
already given (pp. 26, 81, 88, 89, 92-94, &c). The 
principle rests on the well-attested tendency of the 
transcribers to bring passages into harmony with one 

b This (Versio) Itala means what has been called by us the Vetus 
Latina. Five of the best Codd. of this version agree in this variation. 



ON CANONS OF CRITICISM 



III 



another. It is discussed, with its cautions and limita- 
tions, in Tisch. Proleg. pp. 60-63 (8th ed.). 
5. Those readings are to be retained which are characteristic 
either of the Hellenistic idiom, or of the style of the 
New Testament writers. This principle looks to the 
cases of unclassical idioms, unusual modes of spelling, 
and other irregularities. Great caution is needed in 
applying it, for it is almost as possible that a scribe 
should alter the reading before him to a form of ex- 
pression characteristic of his author, as that he should 
do the opposite. 
A special feature in Westcott and Hort's system is the 
place they assign to these Canons, and their mode of using 
them. They have commonly been employed, according as 
the case demanded, in determining separately and successively 
the probably true reading among the variants of each passage 
in the text as it was presented. According to Drs. Westcott 
and Hort, the determination for each passage is part of 
a complicated and connected process of reasoning. To 
explain fully what this process is would be to transcribe 
§§ 24-84 of their Introduction; but in bare outline it may 
be described as follows. The first step is to ascertain, as 
far as possible, the genealogy, i. e. the mutual relations to 
each other, of the various documents which contain the text 
under consideration. This will point to certain classes or 
groups of documents within which the true type of the text 
may be looked for. Thus the amount of variation to which 
the critic's attention need be confined becomes reduced. 
Such evidence will be partly external, partly internal. A 
further test is found in the ' Internal Evidence of Groups 
of Documents ' (or ' of single documents,' if the number of 
documents is small). By this is meant the presumption 
which a careful continuous analysis and classification of the 
readings of a connected group of MSS. affords, as compared 



112 



ON CANONS OF CRITICISM 



with the readings of other groups, that that group contains 
within itself the true type of text. If these two methods 
corroborate each other, the presumption in favour of their 
combined conclusion is very strong. 

But there are yet other considerations which should be 
used to test the result, viz. the two kinds of ' Internal Evi- 
dence of Readings.' These are designated by Dr. Hort, 

(1) 'Intrinsic probability/ and (2) 'Transcriptional probability/ 
When there are more various readings than one in a given 
passage, of course all but one must be erroneous: and we 
have two distinct sets of direct considerations to assist us 
in detecting the true one from the rest, viz. (1) Which was 
the author likely to have written ? That reading which we 
think must have been his words, taking a comprehensive 
view of his style, general teaching, the drift of the context, 
and so on, would be said to have ' intrinsic probability.' 

(2) What were the copyists, who somehow or other must 
have produced the erroneous readings, likely to have had 
before them ? That reading which seems to us most likely 
to have been changed into the several various readings, con- 
sistently with the known tendencies and habits of scribes, 
would be said to have ' transcriptional probability.' Canons 2 
and 5 (above) would be connected with intrinsic, Canons 1, 
3 and 4 with transcriptional, probability. Used thus, as sub- 
ordinate parts of a connected system, these canons attain a 
higher value, than if applied independently to the determina- 
tion of an isolated reading. 



APPENDIX B 



CRITICAL DISCUSSION OF SOME DISPUTED PASSAGES 

We now propose to review the evidence for and against 
a few readings of passages, respecting which there has been 
some important difference of opinion. Some have been 
already noticed incidentally. It will be convenient to arrange 
the evidence for and against them under the four heads 
separately, of Greek MSS., Versions, Fathers, and Subjective 
Considerations. 

(1) The first text we will discuss shall be the famous one 
of the Heavenly Witnesses (i S. John v. 7, 8). Are the 

words iv ra> ovpava 6 IlaT^p, 6 Adyoy, Kai to ayiov Tlvev/xa' Kai 
ovtoi ot rpels ev elo~i. Kai rpels datv oi paprvpovvres ev rfj yrj 

genuine, or not ? 

I. The evidence in favour of them is as follows : — 

1. Cod. Montfort. (Evan. 6i) [XVI], at Dublin; Cod. 

Ottobon. (Act. 162) [XV], in the Vatican; a mar- 
ginal note by a (?) seventeenth- century hand in 
Act. 173 ; and Cod. Ravianus (Evan, no), which 
is simply a transcript of the printed Compluten- 
sian edition. 

2. mr of the Vetus Latina, cav. tol. and many late 

MSS. of the Vulgate ; (in the earlier of these 
authorities the order of verses 7 and 8 is in- 
verted) ; some apparently, but few, Armenian 
MSS. ; a few recent Slavonic. 

3. The earliest known evidence of the existence of 

the passage is found in the lately discovered 
writings of Priscillian, the founder of the Pris- 

HAMMOND t 



ii 4 



CRITICAL DISCUSSION OF 



cillianist heresy in Spain (d. 385). The African 
Latin Fathers, Vigilius and Fulgentius, of the 
fifth century, also quote the verses, the order 
being inverted in all three cases ; and the Pro- 
fession of faith presented by Eugenius, Bp. of 
Carthage, to Hunneric, King of the Vandals, 
was an official document also of the fifth cen- 
tury containing them. Two Greek writings of 
the fourth or fifth century, viz. a Greek Synopsis 
of Holy Scripture and the Pseudo-Athanasius, 
are said to t appear to refer to it/ This is more 
than can be said of Tertullian, and as much as 
can be said of Cyprian, whose words are ' de 
Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est, Et 
tres unum sunt ' : words which his own com- 
patriot Facundus three hundred years later 
thought referred to the three earthly witnesses. 

II. The evidence against the passage is : — 

1. It is omitted in every Greek MS. and Lectionary 

prior to the fifteenth century. 

2. It is omitted in every version of critical value 

except the Latin ; for its occurrence in good 
copies of the Armenian is very doubtful : and, 
as to the Latin, all but m and r of the Vetus 
Latina omit it ; so do the best of S. Jerome's 
revision ; so do the best of Alcuin's revision. 

3. No Greek Father quotes the passage, even in the 

numerous arguments on the Mystery of the 
Blessed Trinity, where its value would have been 
immense. 

4. The numerous variations of text, amounting to 

twelve or more in so short a compass, and the 
variation in the order of the verses above men- 



SOME DISPUTED PASSAGES 115 

tioned, are by themselves enough to throw sus- 
picion on the passage. 
The conclusion from this evidence must be that the text 
has no claim to authenticity a or genuineness. The scanty 
evidence in its favour is practically all Latin, and seems to be 
confined to Spain and Africa. Thence it gradually spread. 

(2) Our next instance shall be S. John vii. 8. The T. R. 

reads iya> ovttco dvafiaiVG) eiy ttjv eoprrjv tovtt]v. 

I. Evidence for ovttco : — 

1. B L T, and eleven secondary uncials, with all 

the minuscules but those below. 

2. (Vet. Lat.) f gq; (Vulg.) some codd., not the 

best ; Syrr. b P. H {text and marg). J. ; Sah. ; 
Goth. 

3. Basil. 

II. Evidence for ol< : — 

1. K D K M n, 17 (sec. man), 389, 507, 570, 558, 

(Evst.) 234. 

2. (Vet. Lat.) a b c eff 2 1 (sec. man.) ; (Vulg.) best 

codd. ; Syr. b C; Boh. ; Arm. ; JEth. 

3. Porphyry (in S. Jerome) ; Jer. ; Epiph. ; Chrys. ; 

Cyril ; all expressly. 

4. This is undoubtedly at first sight the more difficult 

reading : therefore, inasmuch as it does give a 

* Following Archbishop Trench (Select Glossary, p. 15 ; see also 
Blunt's Theological Dictionary, art. ' Authenticity ') we have used the 
word ' authentic ' as implying that a given writing proceeded from the 
pen of the writer to whom it is ascribed; 1 genuine,' as implying that it 
is a veracious, incorrupt, record. Hence a canonical and inspired writ- 
ing may be genuine without being authentic, as the 'Pericope Adulters,' 
or perhaps the Epistle to the Hebrews. Some writers (as, for instance, 
Paley, Evid., Pt. I. Prop. i. ch. viii) interchange these meanings ; hence 
the student must be on his guard when he meets with them. 

b The letters after Syrr. stand for ' Peshitto,' ' Harkleian/ ' Jerusa- 
lem,' ' Curetonian,' and 'Sinaitic,' respectively, 

I 2 



Il6 CRITICAL DISCUSSION OF 

satisfactory sense when carefully weighed, this 

is in its favour. 
We have then the best early, widespread, diplomatic evi- 
dence in favour of ovk. This and the express Patristic 
testimony, backed up by the consideration under No. 4, 
give ample grounds for adopting this reading instead of ovna. 

(3) The next passage for discussion shall be one which 
presents several considerable difficulties (S. John vii. 53 — 
viii. 11), the narrative of the Woman taken in Adultery. 
The evidence is as follows. 

I. Against the passage : — 

1. N (A) B (C) T (L) X (a), 33, and about sixty cursives 

omit it. (A C are deficient in this place, but the 
hiatus is not large enough to have contained the 
passage. L leaves a small gap ; as also does A, 
the scribe of which began to write the first words 
of ch. viii. 12 consecutively after ch. vii. 52, and 
then erased them.) 

E M A S n and sixty-one minuscules have the pas- 
sage, but with an asterisk or obelus to the whole 
or part of it in the margin. 

Thirteen minuscules place the passage at the end of 
the Gospel ; six others place a part of the 
passage there ; one inserts it after vii. 36 ; while 
the Ferrar group place it after S. Luke xxi. 

In the Lectionaries it is always assigned to the 
festival of one of the less important Saints, 
Theodora, Pelagia, or Euphemia. 

2. (Vet. Lat.) ab*fl*q; Syrr. C. P. H. ; Sah. Boh. 

(oldest codd.) ; Goth. ; Arm. (oldest codd.) ; all 
omit the passage. 

3. It is nearly certain, either because they do not allude 

to the passage where the subject almost demands 



SOME DISPUTED PASSAGES 117 



it, or because their commentaries go on con- 
secutively, and yet pass over this section, that 
Origen, Tertullian, Chrysostom, Cyril Alex. 5 
Theodore Mops., Theophylact, and other writers 
were ignorant of it. 
4. (a) The authorities which give the passage present 
great variations of reading ; which is gener- 
ally suspicious. 
(/3) The style is unlike S. John's. There are 
words and expressions which do not occur, 
anywhere else in his writings ; while on the 
other hand his special peculiarities of style 
do not appear in this piece of narrative. 
(y) It gratuitously breaks into the middle of a 
narrative, which runs on continuously but 
for this interposition. 

II. On the other hand : — 

1. D has it, but in a somewhat different form. F G 

HKUr, and more than 300 minuscules, have 
it. The gaps in L A betray some doubt on the 
scribes' part. K M (ninth century uncials) are 
the earliest which raise the number of the TitXoi 
in S. John from eighteen to nineteen, by inter- 
polating K((f). l nep\ ttjs /JLOi^aXidos. 

2. (Vet. Lat.) &* c eff^gjl (mg.); Vulgate, even the 

best codd. ; ^Eth. ; Syr. J. and the later versions 
have it. 

3. The earliest writing in which the passage is recog- 

nized is the Apostolic Constitutions. S. Jerome 
testifies that it was found in many Greek and 
Latin codices ; and S. Augustine defends it : 
S. Ambrose alludes to it. 
Scrivener (Introduction, ii. p. 364) allows that 'on all 



n8 



CRITICAL DISCUSSION OF 



intelligent principles of mere criticism the passage must needs 
be abandoned/ That is to say, we cannot allow it to be 
part of S. John's original Gospel. He suggests, however, 
that S. John might have put forth a second edition of his 
Gospel, in which v. 3, 4, this passage, and chapter xxi, may 
have been inserted. The style and contents, indeed, in both 
of which it is utterly different from any of the narratives of 
the apocryphal gospels, convey an irresistible impression 
of genuineness ; and it is probable that we have a piece of 
apostolic narrative, upon which the consent of the universal 
Church has set the seal of canonicity. But it would be more 
satisfactory to separate it from its present context, and place 
it by itself as an appendix to the Gospel, as is done by 
Westcott and Hort ; or at least print it in different type from 
the rest, to draw attention to the peculiar footing on which it 
stands; or place it in brackets, as the New Testament Revisers 
have done. Nicholson in his work on ' the Gospel according 
to the Hebrews ' adopts it as one of the Fragments of that 
ancient, long-lost document, being 'probably identical in 
substance at least with the narrative mentioned by Eusebius ' 
(as contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews). 

(4) I Tim. Hi. 1 6 : peya c<tt)v to rrjs evaefieias pv(JTi)pLOv' 

Oeos icfravepuBr) iv aapKi is the reading of the Textus Receptus. 
For 6€o? there are various readings, 8s and 8. 

This passage is the subject of a special dissertation by the 
late Dean Burgon, to be found in The Revision Revised, 
pp. 424-501, which must be taken into account. We 
accept his estimate of the MS. evidence, and leave A C F 
and G as uncertain. His criticisms on the evidence of the 
versions and earlier Fathers do not invalidate the conclusion 
we state below. They proceed largely on two assumptions ; 
one, that nvar^piov is necessarily the antecedent of the relative ; 
the other, that the reading 8s impugns the doctrine of the 
Incarnation ! Whereas of course the person whose mani- 



SOME DISPUTED PASSAGES 



Il 9 



festation in the flesh is a mystery must be God. os necessarily 
in substance implies Geo'?. 

It is convenient to summarize the evidence here, first for 
a relative, and secondly for Geo'y ; then finally to decide 
between os and o. 

I. Testimony for a relative : — 

1. N* 17, 73?, 181 and two Lectionaries have os ; D 

reads o. (B is defective here.) (Paul.) 282, 
(Apost) 83 read os Geo's. (A* «c*FG claimed 
by some.) 

2. Vet. Lat., Vulg.; Syrr. P. and H. (text and mg.); 

Sah., Boh.; Goth.; ^Eth.; Arm.; and the Vatican 
Arabic MS. 

3. The testimony of the Patristic writers needs sift- 

ing. The passages which have been cited from 
S. Ignatius and Hippolytus as favouring the 
reading Geo? are too vague to draw any con- 
clusion from. The words of S. Ignatius are 
(Ad Ephes. 19) Geov dvdpco7TLV(os <pavepovp.evov, 
those Of HippolytUS are Geos iv aapan tcpavepaOr); 

but it is evident that these may be only statements 
of the doctrine of the Incarnation, which is 
involved in the verse under discussion, without 
being intended for express allusions to the verse. 
We must further set on one side those citations, 
which have been made, some in support of one, 
some of the other reading, but which, though 

c There is a difference of opinion as to the testimony of the original 
scribe of A. Dr. Tregelles, in his edition of this part of the Greek 
Testament (published in 1870), and now Westcott and Hort, believe os 
to have been the original reading. Dr. Scrivener, on the other hand, is 
rather in favour of ©C (©eos) (see his Introduction, ii. p. 392, with an 
elaborate note) : so is Dean Burgon, on the evidence of the earlier 
collators. Illustrious names are arrayed on both sides. 



120 



CRITICAL DISCUSSION OF 



they manifestly refer to the passage in question, 
are paraphrastic, and might follow naturally 
enough from either reading; since the mystery 
of God manifest in the flesh in the Person of 
Jesus Christ is unmistakeably expressed in both 
readings, though more clearly in one than in 
the other. Such quotations as Barnabas (Ep. 

12), 'Irjaovs ov\ 6 vibs dvOpcorrov d\X' 6 vios rod Geou 
tvttco Kcii iv vapid (pavepeodeLS, with TheodotUS, Ep. 

ad Diogn., and Origen (the passages out of 
whose writings are given in Alford's Greek 
Testament at length), are thought to favour 8s. 
Chrysostom may be quoted apparently on both 
sides. 

The authorities which certainly favour the relative 
are Cyril of Alexandria d , Epiphanius, Theodore 
Mops., the Latin translator of Origen, Jerome, 
Hilary, and Augustine, with all the Latin Fathers. 

II. Testimony for Geo? : — 

1. (A* C* F G claimed by some.) All the later 

uncials, and 300 minuscules, including, however, 
the two which read 6s Geos, and four which read 
6 Geo?. 

2. The Harkleian appears to have the word 'God' 

introduced into the text, but in such a way as 
to show that the translators had two rival 
readings before them. No other version of 
critical value has it. It is the reading of the 
Slavonic. 

3. Didymus and Gregory Nyss., with the later Greek 

Fathers, as Theodoret, John of Damascus, (Ecu- 
menius, and Theophylact. 

d See the remarks on p. 73. 



SOME DISPUTED PASSAGES 



121 



Thus then for Qe6$ there is no certain testimony prior 
to the end of the fourth century, and then it is 
but scanty till the ninth century, the period of 
K 2 L 2 P 2 among the later uncials, and the 
Slavonic version ; while there is a great deal of 
early testimony for a relative. 

III. It remains then to decide between os and o. This 
is a point on which most of the versions can give no 
help. The Latin favours the neuter ; but its weight 
is diminished by S. Jerome's opinion ; the Gothic 
supports the masculine. The testimony of the early 
Greek witnesses, both MSS. and writers, with very 
few exceptions, is for os. 
We may take further into consideration : — 

(a) That os is the harder reading, owing to the 

want of a clearly-expressed antecedent. 
(/3) That o would be more likely to arise out of os, 
than the converse, because of the foregoing 
neuter word /jLva-Trjpiov. 
(?) That the other reading ec would more easily 
arise out of OC than out of O ; so that the 
reading os best accounts for the existence of 
both the other readings. 
(6) To these purely textual arguments we may 
now add the consideration that, as os necessarily 
implies Qeos, the substitution of Qe6s would be 
a very obvious correction, either directly by the 
scribe (sup. p. 25, No. 5), or from a gloss in 
the margin {ibid. No. 4), as is rather favoured 
by the reading os Geos, for 6 Geo's, in some MSS. 
Hence, finally, we conclude that os is the earlier and true 
reading. In fact, assume os as the original reading, and all 
is plain ; assume Geo? as the original, and a great deal of the 



122 



CRITICAL DISCUSSION OF 



material is unaccountable. A reason for the relative os being 
the original reading, though at first sight somewhat ungram- 
matical, is not far to seek. S. Paul is obviously quoting 
from some formula known to Christians at the time, probably 
a hymn. Burgon notes the 4 striking rhythm ' of the 
passage. And the quotation begins with its own relative, just 
as in a similar case i Cor. ii. 9 : a 6cp6a\p6s ovk eldev, k. r. X. 

(5) S. John V. 3, 4 : eKbexopevtov T h v T °v vScitos klvt](tlv. 
ayycXos yap Kara naipbv Karefiiaivev iv rfj Ko\vp(3r]&pq /cat irapaaue 
to vdo>p' 6 ovv 7rp<i)Tos epficts pera. rrjv Tapaxqv tov vdaros, vyirjs 
eytvero, <S drjnoTe Karet^ero voo~r)pciTi. The question is whether 

this passage is genuine or not. 

I. Testimony against it : — 

1. xB C*, 157, 314 omit the whole passage. 
A* L, 18 omit the clause eKde^opevav . . kIvt^o-lv. 
A ( r 4)> 33 omit verse 4. 

S n A, and about twenty minuscules, mark verse 4 
with either asterisks or obeli ; (n verse 3 also). 

2. q omits the whole ; f, I omit verse 4; four of Vulg. 

the whole. 

Syr. C. omits the whole; H. (marg.) obelizes. 
Sah., and Boh. (majority of codd.) omit. 
Arm. (many of the codices) also omit. 

3. No writers, but those mentioned below, allude to 

the narrative. 

II. Testimony for it : — 

1. A* (verse 4 only) C 3 D (verse 3 only) E F G L 

(verse 4 only), with eight more late uncials, and 
all collated minuscules but those mentioned above ; 
but with many variations. 

2. All the other Latin codices, but those mentioned 

above, both of the Vet. Lat. and the Vulgate ; 
Syrr. P. and J. ; and Boh. (some). 



SOME DISPUTED PASSAGES 



123 



3. Tertullian, Chrysostom, Didymus, Cyril Alex., 
Ambrose, Theophylact, and Euthymius recog- 
nize the narrative. 
Some of the evidence is undoubtedly early ; but the 
omission of the verses from so many of the authorities, and 
the variations of those that contain them, are very suspicious. 
The passage bears all the appearance of a marginal gloss, 
embodying perhaps a popular belief, to explain the 'troubling 
of the water ' e mentioned in verse 7, which afterwards got 
received into the text. On the whole the verdict must be 
adverse to its retention. 

(6) S. Luke xxii. 43, 44 : a>(pBrj de avra ayyeXos an ovpavov 
evurxvoov avrov. Kai yevopevos iv dyewiq inrevearepop npoo"qvx^ro 
Kai eyevero 6 idpcbs avrov dbcrel 6popj3oi atparos Karaftaivovros en\ rr)V 

yrjv. These two verses have been called in question ; but 
without sufficient reason, as will be seen from the following 
statement of the evidence. 

I. Evidence against the passage : — 

1. N a A B R T, 124, 561. 

13 has &<p6r) be(j)rima manti)\ the remainder added 
sec. man. 

C c , 'The Ferrar group/ and all known Evan- 
gelistaria, have the passage inserted after S. Matt, 
xxvi. 39. 

E S V r A n and others, including ten minuscules, 
place an obelus or asterisk against it. 

2. f; Syr. S. Boh. (ten codd.), Sah. (some), and some 

Armenian, omit. 

e Lt.-Col. Conder (Hastings' Diet, of the Bible, s.v. ' Bethesda ') is 
inclined to identify Bethesda with the £ Virgins Pool' (now so-called), 
whicli has a natural intermittent ' troubling of the waters,' caused by a 
syphon-action of the spring, and in which it is still the custom of the 
Jews to bathe at these times for the cure of rheumatism and other 
diseases. 



124 



CRITICAL DISCUSSION OF 



3. Cyril Alex, does not notice the verses in his 
Homilies on the Gospel of S. Luke. Hilary 
testifies that the passage is wanting in very many 
Greek and Latin codices ; S. Jerome, that it is 
found in some. 

II. Testimony for the passage : — 

!. a* andcDFGHKL and five more late uncials, 
with Evan. 1, and all collated minuscules but 
those above. A has the Ammonian section 
which belongs to the passage marked in the 
margin* \ though the verses are wanting in the 
text. 

2. All the codices of the Vet. Lat. but f\ Vulg. ; 

Syrr. C. P. H. and J.; Sah. (some); Boh. 
(some) ; Arm. 

3. Justin Martyr, Irenseus, Hippolytus, Dionysius 

Alex., Eusebius, Athanasius, Ephraem Syr., 
Gregory Naz., Chrysostom, Hilary, Jerome, 
Augustine, and numerous other writers, early and 
late, clearly refer to it. 

Thus there is very full and early evidence in favour of the 
passage ; in fact, the only very strong argument against it 
is its omission by B ; and with this may be contrasted its 
presence in N. 

The insertion of the verses in S. Matthew's Gospel by 
the Evangelistaria and the four above-named MSS. points 
to what is probably the true cause of the omission here. 
The verses were regularly read after S. Matt. xxvi. 39 in 
the Lection for Holy Thursday, and as regularly omitted 
in their proper sequence in the Lection for Tuesday after 

f Westcott and Hort, however (Notes, p. 65), think that this merely 
shows the biblical text and the Eusebian notation to have been taken 
from different sources. 



SOME DISPUTED PASSAGES 



125 



Sexagesima. In MSS. then prepared for ecclesiastical use 
(vid. pp. 27, 28), sometimes they would be inserted in their 
ecclesiastical place, sometimes a marginal note would direct 
their omission in one place and insertion in another. It 
is easy to see how such ' Lectionary practice ' might be the 
source of error. 

Westcott and Hort consider the passage an interpolation, 
a fragment of the traditions current alongside of the Canonical 
Gospels, but one of the most precious of them. So too Nestle. 
There is no doubt at all events about its canonicity, and that 
it must be retained in the text. 

(7) S. Matt. xxi. 28-31. The difficulties in connection 
with this passage do not admit of being stated very shortly. 
There is a question of words in verse 31, viz. whether vo-repos, 
or eaxaros, the meaning of which would be nearly the same, 
is to be substituted for npwTos in the answer of the Chief 
Priests. But this is complicated by a question of the order 
of the narrative ; for some of the authorities transpose the 
answers of the two sons in the parable, placing first the 
answer of the son who professed to do his father's bidding 
but went not, and the answer of the other son second. Thus 
we really have three questions to consider : — 

(a) The order in which the sons are mentioned. 

(/3) Which of the two sons did the Chief Priests intend 
to assert had done his father s bidding ? 

(y) The choice between the three words npcoros, vo-repos, 

Or earxaros. 

And we will take the evidence in the order here indicated, 
(a) To decide, then, the order in which the two sons are 
mentioned we have the following data : — 
I. For the order of the Textus Receptus : — 

1. t*CDLXZ$2 &c, and most of the minus- 
cules. 



126 



CRITICAL DISCUSSION OF 



2. Vet. Lat., Vulg. ; Syrr. C. P. and H. 

3. Origen, Eusebius, Cyril, Chrysostom, Irenaeiis(z>z/.), 

Hilary. 

II. For the converse order, which would make the elder 
son promise to go and then fail : — 

1. B, and of the minuscules the Ferrar group, with 

four or five more. 

2. One MS. of the Vulg. (sec. man)) Boh. ; Syr. J. ; 

Arm. ; ^Eth. (two codices). 

3. Isidore, John of Damascus, the Pseudo-Athana- 

sius. 

(13) As to the second question, Which of the two sons the 
Chief Priests meant to say had done the father's 
bidding, we have to notice that all the MSS. and 
versions enumerated above, which reverse the order 
in which the sons are mentioned, also substitute 
va-repos or devrepos, or some equivalent word, for 
the itpGiTos of the Textus Receptus : thus the reply 
of the Chief Priests to our Lord is represented as 
virtually the same in either case. But D, and a 
good many codices both of the Vetus Latina and 
the Vulgate, which agree with the Textus Receptus 
in the order of the sons, have respectively eaxaros 
and novissimum for npcbTos; thus transposing the 
connection. S. Jerome interprets this answer on 
the hypothesis that the Chief Priests knew what 
answer our Lord intended them to give, but pur- 
posely gave a wrong one : at the same time, how- 
ever, he asserts that, ( vera exemplaria ' had primum 
and not novissimum for their reading. There is 
only then the witness of D, backed by the partial 
testimony of the Latin versions in favour of this 
answer of the Chief Priests. 



SOME DISPUTED PASSAGES 



127 



On the whole, then, the evidence for the order of the 
Textus Receptus seems sufficient; and the evi- 
dence for making the Chief Priests recognize the 
obedience of the son, who at first refused but 
afterwards repented, is overwhelming. 
(y) And thus we are helped to an easy solution of the 
third question : namely, that we must adopt the 
reading 7rpa>Tos of the Textus Receptus. 
There are one or two subordinate variations, but not of 
sufficient consequence to demand separate treatment. 

It may be remarked that Dr. Tregelles adopts the reading 
6 vo-repos without the previous transposition of the two sons, 
and explains it as equivalent to 6 vorepov pera/xeX^Bds ; the 
grammatical possibility of which may well be questioned. 

(8) Acts xx. 28. There are six readings here to decide 

between, viz. (i) tov Qeov. (2) tov Kvpiov. (3) tov Kvpiov Kal 
Geov. (4) tov Kvpiov Qeov. (5) tov Qeov kcu Kvpiov. (6) toO 
Xpiarov. 

It will be most convenient to consider them in the reverse 
order to that in which they are here enumerated. 
In favour of (6) there is : — - 

1. No MS. authority. 

2. (Syr. P.); and Vet. Lat. m (Jesu Christi) ; (JEth.). 

3. Athan. (four times), Origen (once), Theod. (twice). 
This therefore may at once be dismissed as a gloss. 

In favour of (5), only 47 is quoted. 

In favour of (4), only 3, and 95 (sec. man.). 

In favour of (3) : — 

1. C c H L P and more than one hundred and ten 

minuscules. 

2. The Slavonic (Tregelles* Printed Text), but no 

version of critical value. 

3. Theophylact (in one place). 



128 



CRITICAL DISCUSSION OF 



These three variants then may be dismissed as conflate 
readings, which really only testify to the existence of a doubt 
in early times between the claims of the two remaining 
important readings, tov eeov and rod Kvpiov. Between these 
the evidence is so nearly balanced, that the decision cannot 
be absolutely final. 

In favour of (2) we find : — 

1. A C* D E and sixteen examined minuscules. 

2. Sah., Boh.; Syr. H. (mg.); Arm.; and (accord- 

ing to Teschendorf) the Roman ^Ethiopia 

3. Irenseus (in/.), Lucifer, Apostolic Constitutions, 

Athanasius (one codex), Augustine, Jerome, 
Didymus, Chrysostom (in a catena), Eusebius, 
and others. 

But some of the quotations adduced, as that of Eusebius, 

avvrjyfiivoi dia Kvpiov ovs avros iXvrpooaaTO r<5 IBla aifiari, are 

not close enough to the text to warrant us in asserting that 
one and not the other reading was intended to be quoted. 
There is a reminiscence of the passage, doubtless, but not 
a verbal quotation. 

On the other hand, in favour of (1) are ranged : — 

1. N B, about twelve minuscules, and twelve Lec- 

tionaries. 

2. Vulg. ; Syr. (P.), H. (text). 

3. Iren. {txt. prob.), Chrysostom (three times), Basil, 

Cyril Alex, (twice), Epiphanius, Ibas, Ambrose, 
and others. This is the only passage that would 
give Scriptural support to the remarkable expres- 
sion of S. Ignatius, lv m/zan GeoC (Ad Ephes. 1) ; 
but in opposition to this the strong assertion of 
S. Athanasius is alleged, ovdapov alfxa eeov St^a 

o-apubs 7rapadeda)Kcto-Lv ai ypacfiai, which is of COUrse 

strictly and literally true, even if eeov be read 



SOME DISPUTED PASSAGES 



129 



here. We can easily see that the expression, 
* the blood of God,' taken nakedly by itself, is 
a dangerous one, as being open to heretical 
misinterpretation. It is used by Tertullian and 
Clement of Alexandria, but condemned by Origen. 
Possibly the consciousness of this danger operated 
towards the substitution of Kvpiov. The testimony 
of the Lectionaries for Qeov is important as 
showing the mind of the Church where they 
were used. 

This is just one of the cases to which the remark of 
Dean Alford, quoted at p. 5, applies with its full force. 
Whichever of the two readings we suppose to have been the 
original, some reason may be supposed for the substitution 
of the other. 'H eKKXrjaia (at £kk.) tov Qeov is a common 
expression of S. Paul ; C H £kk. tov Kvpiov occurs nowhere else 
in the New Testament. Again, it is a small argument perhaps, 
but not to be wholly passed over, that while 6 Kvpios occurs 
three times in this speech of S. Paul to the Ephesian Elders, 
it is always with some addition : in two places (verses 24, 35) 
it is 6 Kvpios 'irjo-ovs ; in the third (verse 21) there is some 
little doubt, but the reading is perhaps rbv Kvpiov rjpcov 'irjo-ovv 
(Xpio-rov). Now when a person is speaking under the in- 
fluence of strong emotion, he commonly uses his own natural, 
that is, his characteristic style : and moreover, he is very 
apt to repeat without variation the expressions in which 
the idea which he desires to impress upon his audience 
first suggested itself. There seems a peculiar tenderness in 
S. Paul's dwelling thus upon the name of his Lord. These 
considerations would rather lead us to look for the familiar 
rfjv eKicKrjo-iav rod Qeov, and to expect that if Kvpiov were 
S. Paul's word he would have added 'i^o-ou or 'Irjcrov Xpiarov. 

It may be said on the other side, with some force, that it 

HAMMOND K 



13° 



CRITICAL DISCUSSION OF 



is more likely that the unusual Kvplov should be altered into, 
the familiar Geov, than the reverse. 

There is weight too in what Tischendorf says ; that, if we 
assume Kvplov to be the original reading, it is much easier to 
understand the addition of Qeov, and thus get at the origin 
of those mixed readings, than to understand the addition of 
Kvplov, if Ofov had stood originally in the text. 

Tregelles and Tischendorf both place Kvplov in the text ; 
Tregelles places Qeo£> in the margin, as an alternative reading 
strongly supported. The N. T. Revisers place Qeov in their 
text, with Kvplov in the margin. Westcott and Hort adopt 

Qeov. 

(9) Acts xi. 20. We will next discuss a passage, which 
records an interesting fact in the history of the infant 
Church. The question here is between 'EW^o-rds, which 
is the reading of the Textus Receptus, and "EXX^i/nr. 

I. For 'EXX^noras : — 

1. B D b E 2 H 2 L 2 P 2 13, 61, and almost all minuscules. 

K*, which has the strange reading EvayyeXio-rd?, 
seems from the termination of that word to 
favour this reading. 

2. No version can be quoted in its support * but no 

great stress can be laid on this fact, since the 
versions in general appear not to recognize the 
distinction. 

3. S. Chrysostom, with (Ecumenius and Theophylact, 

in quoting the passage favour this reading ; but as 
their commentaries clearly imply the other read- 
ing, it may be that the text has here been altered 
by the transcribers. 

II. For *E\\r)vas \ — 

i. no AD*, 184. 



SOME DISPUTED PASSAGES 



2. Syr. P. ; Armenian ; and apparently the vEthiopic 

(Tregelles). 

3. Eusebius and Chrysostom, followed by QEcumenius 

and Theophylact as indicated above, in his com- 
mentary, e. g. opa, "EWrjcrtv euayyeXigovTai. 

Taken simply by itself the evidence might seem to be 
in favour of 'EXlrjuia-rds : but we cannot help taking into con- 
sideration that this reading, if the words are used in their usual 
acceptation, seems to make nonsense of the passage. There 
is evidently a contrast intended by the writer between the 
'lovdaioi, to whom the other preachers of the Gospel spoke, 
and the persons addressed by these men of Cyprus and Cyrene 
at Antioch. This contrast is heightened by the Kat, which is 
undoubtedly to be inserted after cXdXovv. But the 'EWrjvKrraL 
were Jews; and the proper antithesis to 'EWrjvia-Trjs is not 
'lovSmos but e E@pcuos. We are inclined therefore with the N.T. 
Revisers to adopt "EXA^a? as the true reading. Westcott and 
Hort retain the reading of the T. R. But this seems just one 
of those rare cases where subjective considerations may turn 
the scale against documentary evidence. 

(10) We have reserved for the last place the disputed 
verses at the end of S. Mark's Gospel (c. xvi. 9-20). 

That the passage proceeded from S. Mark's own pen we 
are inclined to doubt; yet, like S. John vii. 53 — viii. 11, it 
seems to have an equal claim with the rest of the Gospel 
upon our acceptance as a genuine canonical portion of the 
sacred record. 

It is impossible in a short space to do justice to the many 
considerations which arise at every turn in this case. Dean 
Burgon has written a volume on these ' Last Twelve Verses,' 
wherein he proves that much of the evidence commonly 
arrayed against the verses is simply non-existent, statements 
having been incautiously copied by one great critic after 

K 2 



132 



CRITICAL DISCUSSION OF 



another, which, incredible as it may seem, when examined 
carefully turn out to have no foundation at all, or even in some 
cases to have an exactly opposite bearing to that alleged: 
that much of the adverse Patristic evidence consists not, as 
is represented, of the independent opinions of certain Fathers, 
but of so many almost verbal transcriptions of a passage in 
Eusebius, in which moreover Eusebius is not giving his own 
judgment : while several of the Fathers cited as hostile, give 
in other parts of their works clear evidence in favour of the 
verses. Further, it is shown that the so-called proofs from 
style and phraseology (proofs which for the most part proceed 
upon the extraordinary assumption, that if a writer does not 
use a word or phrase at least twice in the course of his 
writings — however short the writings may be, and however 
inappropriate the word or phrase might be in other parts of 
the writings — it is abhorrent to his style, and a sign that the 
passage in which it occurs is not authentic !) are either false, 
or that they prove a great deal too much. 

For clearness' sake we will first give the evidence formerly 
commonly alleged against the passage. 

i. N omits the passage. The Gospel ends with £(po(3ovvro yap, 
and S. Luke's Gospel begins at the top of the next column 
as usual, without any mark or note. 

B omits the passage ; but a whole column is left blank, as if 
the scribe were aware that something was wanting. 

L breaks off at k<po&ovvTo yap, and in the next column gives 
two alternative endings to the Gospel, as being both tradi- 
tional: the first a short (and certainly apocryphal) forms, 
the second being vv. 9-20, as commonly read. 

¥ gives the short form (of L) without a break after kqo&ovvro 
yap, and then gives the usual form of vv. 9-20 as being also 
current. 

s iravra be tcL iraprjyyeXpieva roTs irept rbv Herpov crvvTopicos €£r]yyei\av. 
fierd St ravra avrbs 6 'irjaovs ecpavr] avrois, ml dirb dvarokrjs real &xpi 
ovaews i^airiaTziXev 81 avrajv to Upbv real d<p$apTov Krjpvypia rfjs alojviov 
ooJTTjpias. 



SOME DISPUTED PASSAGES 



133 



It is alleged that about thirty cursive MSS. mark the verses in 
question as doubtful, by placing an asterisk against them, or 
a marginal note, or by having a break between vv. 8 and 9, 
with a note interposed. 

It is said that the passage has no place assigned to it by 
Eusebius among his ' Ammonian ' Sections. 

2. k of the Yetus Latina gives the same ending as the first of L 

(above). Syr. H. (mg.) does the same. fiLxh. (two old 
MSS.) gives nearly the same. Arm. (some old MSS. omit 
the passage altogether ; others give the verses with a new 
heading, after a break). An Arabic Lectionary (ninth 
century) in the Vatican Library omits it. 

3. It is said that Eusebius, Jerome, Gregory of Nyssa, Victor of 

Antioch, Hesychius of Jerusalem, Severus of Antioch, and 
Euthymius, all testify to a doubt thrown upon the verses, or 
to their absence from many codices. 

4. (a) There are, it is said, in this short passage as many as 

twenty-one words and phrases which do not occur 
elsewhere in the Gospel ; e. g. Tropevop.a.1, 6ta.op.ai, am- 
crioj, p.era ravra, 6 Kvpios (absolutely of Jesus Christ), 

TTpdlTT] CdfificLTOV, &C, &C. 

(j3) The identification of S. Mary Magdalene, a<p' rjs e*jSe- 
P\r)ttei kirra 8a.ifj.6via, notwithstanding she has been 
mentioned already in this chapter and the last, seems 
to favour the hypothesis of an independent narrative, 
rather than of a continuation by the same writer. 

(7) The introduction of the note of time, irpwi Trpurr} {jafiParov, 
is so unnecessary, if the narrative were continuous, that 
it looks like the commencement of a fresh narrative. 



It is so difficult to divest oneself of the impression produced 
by this array of arguments, as represented in the works of 
such critics as Teschendorf, Tregelles, and Dr. Davidson, 
that it seems best, before giving the summary of the real 
evidence on both sides, to give here the disproofs of some 
of the chief points. 

And first as to the 1 about thirty cursives/ When these 
MSS. are referred to, it turns out that their evidence is really in 
favour of and not adverse to the genuineness of the verses. 
It is true they all have a scholion recognizing the absence of 



!34 



CRITICAL DISCUSSION OF 



them from some codices : at the same time they all in 
various words in the same scholion testify to their being 
4 undoubtedly genuine/ ' part of the text,' found ' in other,' 
' in many,' ' in the ancient copies/ ' in the true Palestinian 
copy,' or ( in the approved copies preserved at Jerusalem.' 

Further, Dean Burgon brings forward arguments which 
show that almost certainly the word re'Xoy, which occurs in 
the text of some of these and other MSS. after v. 8, and has 
been taken by many critics to mark the end of the Gospel, is 
merely a trace of the Lectionary system of which we have 
spoken elsewhere, and marks here the end of an important 
ecclesiastical Lection. There is however one MS. (22) in 
which the word reXos occurs twice, viz. after v. 8, and again 
after v. 20 ; and here it seems really to indicate that in some 
authorities the Gospel ended with one verse, and in some 
with the other. 

As to the Fathers above enumerated ; Dean Burgon 
shows that the passage which has caused Gregory of Nyssa, 
Severus of Antioch, and Hesychius of Jerusalem to be 
quoted as adverse, comes from a homily or dissertation 
which has been attributed at different times to each of these 
three Fathers. At all events then two of them cannot be 
quoted. But whichever be really the author, the passage is 
a mere reproduction of a certain comment of Eusebius, and 
therefore not entitled to claim independent weight ; while, on 
the other hand, in the same homily, the 19th verse is quoted 
as being genuine, showing what was the real opinion of the 
writer. So too S. Jerome and Victor of Antioch are shown, 
the one to be merely translating, the other reproducing, 
Eusebius' comment : and S. Jerome not only left the twelve 
verses in his revised Vulgate, but quotes the 9th and 14th 
verses as genuine. The testimony of Euthymius, a twelfth- 
century commentator, is obviously of no account on such a 
point as this. There remains then Eusebius ; and his sup- 



SOME DISPUTED PASSAGES 



J 35 



posed testimony is of two distinct kinds. First, there is the 
long passage from his Qucestiones ad Marinum, of which the 
first half ofily is given in the critical Annotations of Teschen- 
dorf (8th ed.) ; but the contents of which, if the whole be 
carefully weighed, will be seen to leave the matter at least 
open, not committing Eusebius to any opinion at all about 
the genuineness of the passage. Elsewhere he quotes v. 9, 
more than once. Secondly, there is the scholion at v. 8 in 
codd. 1, 206, 209, in which occur the words eW ov ku\ 
Vua€&Los 6 Ua^ikov iKcivaviotv. It is not quite clear what 
this means, but, so far as its authority goes, it seems adverse 
to the verses. For if it means that he placed in his tables 
(Canons) no section of S. Mark's Gospel after § 233 (the 
number which is commonly set against v. 8), then, inasmuch 
as § 233 belongs to Canon II (the table of passages common 
to the first three Gospels), § 233 must have consisted of v. 8 
alone, for the remaining verses are not common to the three, 
and in that case it would have been strange if the remaining 
verses, had they existed in his copies, had not been sectionized 
and referred to some of the Tables. Or, if it means that 
Eusebius numbered no sections after § 233, that would be 
curiously contrary to the analogy of his work; that is, if the 
verses were there. In either case then a presumption is raised 
against his acknowledgment of these verses. It is a fact that 
there are many more codices extant in which the sectionizing 
is carried beyond v. 8, than those in which it stops at that 
point, but it does not follow that this was done by Eusebius. 
When the passage had become established in the text, it 
would be a natural thing to extend the system to it. 

The investigation in which Dean Burgon deals with the 
arguments against the passage, from the alleged discrepancies 
of its style and phraseology from that of S. Mark generally, 
is able, amusing, and suggestive, but not convincing in its 
entirety. There is a want of continuity between these verses 



136 



CRITICAL DISCUSSION OF 



and the preceding. The passage (says Dr. Swete n ) ' begins 
with a statement which .... presupposes a situation to 
which the earlier verses of the chapter offer no clue ' (see 
below, I. 4, 0, y). The structure of the passage is different 
from that usual with S. Mark. 1 Instead of a succession of 
short paragraphs, linked by ml and an occasional 8e, we 
have before us a carefully constructed passage, in which 

pera. de raCra, vVTepov be, 6 fxev ovv, eKelvos Se, mark the Successive 

points of juncture/ And 1 the purpose is didactic, and not 
simply or in the first place historical.' That is, ' the author 
wishes to exhibit the slow recovery of the Apostles from 
their unbelief, and the triumphant power of faith.' This is 
unlike the rest of S. Mark's Gospel, which is primarily 
historical. 

We now give a summary of the real evidence against and 
for the passage. 

I. Evidence against the verses being an integral part of 
the Gospel : — 

i. (k) (B) (L) (¥)n 12 p. The leaf of K on which the 
Gospel ends is one of the conjugate leaves, 
probably a ' cancel,' written by the scribe of B 
(see p. 45), and the writing of the last column is 
said to be more spread out than commonly in 
the codex, as if to fill up space purposely, other- 
wise a whole column, as in B, would have been 
blank. Thus we arrive at two probabilities, 
which both tend to weaken the, at first sight, con- 
current adverse testimony of X and B. (i) The 
two witnesses seem really to resolve themselves 
into only one ; (2) the unusual space after 
ecjyopovvTo ydp in both suggests that, whatever 
may have been the reason for the non-insertion 

h In 'The Gospel according to St. Mark,' Introd. p. ciii. 



SOME DISPUTED PASSAGES 



137 



of the verses, the scribes knew that some addi- 
tional matter was commonly found at the end 
of the Gospel. L I 12 p have marks of a break at 
ecpoQjvvTo ydp, and then give both endings, the 
shorter one first. ¥ also gives both endings, 
but the shorter one is written immediately after 
ecpofiovvro yap, and then the other, preceded by the 

note icrriv <a\ ravra (pepopeva pera to i<pofiovvro yap. 

Evan. 274 gives the shorter ending in the margin ; 
and 22 shows a break after verse 8, followed by 

the note, %v rtai rcov dvriypdcpcov eccs code TrXrjpovrai 
6 evayyeXuTTrjs, ev ttoWoIs Ka\ ravra (pepercu, and 

then the usual longer ending, testifying that 
MSS. existed then in which the Gospel ended 

with €(po(3ovvro yap. 

Many MSS. known to Eusebius, which he con- 
sidered the most accurate, many more probably 
known to Jerome, and others mentioned by the 
Scholia ; but no existing MSS., other than N and 
B, without the verses. 

There is the Scholion, whatever weight may be 

given to it — eW ov EiW/3ios 6 IIap<pi\ov iKavovio-ev. 

2. k of the Vetus Latina gives the apocryphal con- 

clusion found in L, omitting vv. 9-20 altogether. 
Syrr. S. and H. (marg.) do the same. So do 
two important MSS. of the Bohairic, in the 
margin. ^Eth. (several old MSS.) gives nearly 
the same, followed however continuously by vv. 
9-20. Arm. (some of the best omit the pass- 
age ; others give it with a new heading after a 
break). An Arabic Lectionary (ninth century) 
in the Vatican Library omits it. 

3. The Patristic evidence against the verses after all 



CRITICAL DISCUSSION OF 



amounts to no more than this, that Eusebius' 
opinion, rather more probably than not, was 
unfavourable. Victor of Antioch does not con- 
tinue his commentary beyond the eighth verse. 
And a good many writers, who might have been 
expected to quote from the verses, do not, as 
(? Cyril Jer.), Tertullian, Cyprian, and others. 
The argument e silentio is of very partial force. 

4, (a) It is difficult to account for so widespread 
omission of them, if they were original. 

(ft) The want of literary continuity between vv. 8 
and 9, indicated by the fresh identification of 

Mary Magdalene (d(p* rjs e*/3e/3/Vj7fcei enra Saifxovia) 

when she has been already mentioned in v. 1 ; 
by the absence of an expressed nominative to 
the verb iqbdvt) ; and by the doubled note of time 
(zTpcot nptoTi) aa.fifta.Tov) after v. 2 (see above), 
(y) The ' moral discontinuity/ whereby the account 
of the women's visit to the sepulchre leaves 
them before us at v. 8 in a state of unassuaged 
terror. No subsequent incident is mentioned, as 
in the accounts of S. Matthew and S. Luke, to 
indicate their relief or change of feeling ; yet 
something, scarcely consistent, is told of Mary 
Magdalene, who was one of the party. 

II. Evidence for the verses as belonging to the Gospel : — 
1. (L) [V] (V 2 )(p) n (22), with many MSS. antecedent 
to 22. 

All extant MSS., uncial and minuscule, but those 

mentioned above. 
MSS. known to Eusebius, and probably to Jerome, 

and to the author of a Scholion that is found 

repeated in many minuscules. 



SOME DISPUTED PASSAGES 



139 



The verses are found in all the Lectionaries, ap- 
pointed to be read at Eastertide and on Ascension 
Day. 

2. Vet. Lat. ; Vulg. ; Syrr. C. P. H {text). J. (vv. 
17-20); Boh.; M\h. (some); Goth, (to v. 12). 

3. Hermas, Justin M. (?); Irenseus; Gesta Pilati ; 
Apostolic Constitutions ; Didymus ; Epiphanius ; 
Aphraates ; Marinus ap. Euseb. ; Anon. ap. 
Macarius ; Nestorius ap. Cyril ; Chrysostoni 
(prob.) ; Ambrose ; Augustine ; Jerome ; Hesy- 
chius of Jerusalem, or whoever is the author of 
■ the Homily on the Resurrection ' (see above, 
p. 134) ; Eusebius and Victor of Antioch at all 
events knew of the passage. 

4. (a) Answer to (I. 4, a). It is difficult to account 
for so early and widespread acceptance and 
transmission of the account if it were not 
genuine. This also meets a difficulty felt by 
some in harmonizing this account with the other 
Gospels. 

(/3) The small amount of various readings in the 
text is also in favour of its genuineness. 

(7) The passage forms a consistent whole in itself, 
with an irresistible ring of truth about it. 

(§) It is wholly unlike the attempt of a scribe to 
supplement by his own ingenuity a record that 
he found defective ; but evidence of a curious 
tradition has been lately discovered by Mr. F. C. 
Conybeare in an Armenian MS. of the Gospels, 
written in 986. The Gospel of S. Mark appears 
to come to an end with verse 8 just at the 
beginning of a line. Then at the beginning of 
the next line verse 9 commences, and the rest of 



140 CRITICAL DISCUSSION OF DISPUTED PASSAGES 



the twelve verses follow. But in the vacant three- 
fourths of a line between verses 8 and 9 stand 
the words, by a contemporary hand — ' of the 
presbyter Arision! Mr. Conybeare suggests that 
by this Ariston may be meant the Aristion who 
is mentioned by Papias (Eus. H. E. hi. 39) as a 
disciple of the Lord with S. John. At all events 
this would show that there existed a tradition 
attributing these verses to another author than 
S. Mark. 

To sum up then, we find a passage for the conclusion of 
the Gospel, the attestation to the early existence and very 
wide acceptance of which is overwhelming ; the only rival to 
which moreover is a passage undoubtedly spurious. More- 
over, the testimony of the Lectionaries compels us to accept 
it as a part of the sacred text. But the peculiar circumstances 
of its transmission force upon us the further questions — Is it 
the original conclusion ? or is the original conclusion lost ? 
or did the Gospel end originally at icpofiovvro yap} The 
third alternative is next to impossible. Nor would it be 
according to S. Mark's style (see ix. 6 and xi. 18) to end 
thus with a yap. The first, looking to (I. 4, a, 0, y) and (II. 
4, S), is difficult to accept. We finally therefore, though with 
some hesitation on account of the somewhat startling 
assumption that is involved, are inclined to accept the 
second, and conclude that these verses are an independent 
record of our Lord's post- Resurrection appearances, of 
primitive if not Apostolic authority, which was added at 
some very early period to the Gospel to supplement the 
original loss. 



APPENDIX C 



LIST OF THE CHIEF UNCIAL MSS 

In the following list are given — the letter by which each 
MS. is usually cited, the common name of the MS., the 
century when it was transcribed, and its present locality; 
and in most instances its contents and condition are in- 
dicated. 

The designation-letters are of course those now commonly 
assigned. But if the student should compare it with any old 
list, as that prefixed to Bruder's Concordance, or that of any 
"old critical edition of the New Testament, he will find dis- 
crepancies. For some of the older known MSS. have been 
dropped out for critical reasons, as O (Montefalconii) and R 
(Tubingensis) of Bruder's list ; and others, once quoted 
separately, have been found to be parts of the same MS. and 
are denominated by one common letter, as J (Cottonianus) 
and I (Vaticanus), have been proved to be parts of N (Codex 
Purpureus), and are now quoted under that same letter N : 
and the letters thus set free have been assigned to other MSS. 
more recently discovered. The names of primary uncials are 
in capitals, the names of secondary uncials in black type. 

K. Cod. SINAITICUS [IV]. Imperial Library at St. Peters- 
burg. A great part of the Old Testament, and 
the New Testament entire. The Cod. Friderico- 
Augustanus at Leipsic is really a part of this MS. 
(See further, p. 43, &c.) It is convenient to bear in 



142 



LIST OF THE 



mind that besides the reading of the original scribe 
(K*), those of four out of the numerous correctors 
are commonly quoted, under the following denomi- 
nations : X a is thought to be almost of the same 
age as the original scribe, at any rate of the fourth 
century ; K b , whose corrections are very important, 
is placed in the sixth century : then follow two 
correctors of the seventh century, called N c a , K c b . 

A. Cod. ALEXANDRINUS [V]. Library of the British 
Museum in London. The whole of the Old and 
New Testaments, except a few leaves which have 
been lost. It contains also a copy, long the only 
one known to exist, of the first Epistle of Clement 
of Rome, and a fragment of the so-called second, 
placed as if they belonged to the Canonical books. 
The writing is continuous, in uncial characters of 
very elegant and clear form, with capital letters 
larger than the rest, and projecting beyond the line 
at the beginning of books and sections. A very 
simple punctuation is introduced, consisting of a 
single point at the end of a sentence, followed by 
a break in the writing. There are no accents or 
breathings, except at the beginning of the book of 
Genesis, where the first four lines of each column 
are written in vermilion. Each page has two 
columns. The WrXot, the ' Ammonian Sections/ 
and the Eusebian Canons, are found complete in 
the Gospels ; but there are no marginal marks of 
division throughout the rest of the New Testament, 
though the text is divided as the sense requires by 
paragraphs and capitals. The titles and subscrip- 
tions of the books are still very short and simple, 
though a little longer than those found in X and B : 



CHIEF UNCIAL MSS. 



143 



e.g. for Kara MaSdatov we here find cvayyiKtov Kara 
MaflOaiov, &C. 

To determine the date of the Codex we have such 
arguments as these : — The presence of the Epistles 
of Clement, the shortness of the subscriptions, and 
the absence of the Euthalian divisions of the Acts 
and Epistles, would all point to a date not later 
than the middle of the fifth century ; while the in- 
sertion of the Eusebian Canons, and of the Epistle 
of Athanasius to Marcellinus, would prevent our 
assigning a date earlier than the latter half of the 
fourth. But the style of the writing is somewhat 
later than that of X and B, and would point to the 
early part of the fifth century. 

B. 1. Cod. VATIC ANUS [IV]. Vatican Library in Rome. 

The Old and New Testaments, except the Epistles 
to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, and a part of 
the Epistle to the Hebrews. The Apocalypse and 
the missing part of the Epistle to the Hebrews 
have been added by a more recent hand. (See 
further, p. 47, &c.) 

2. Cod. Basilianus [VIII]. Vatican Library in Rome. 
The Apocalypse. 

C. Cod. EPHRAEMI [V]. National Gallery in Paris. 

Fragments of the LXX, and of all the books of 
the New Testament, but Colossians, 2 Timothy, 
Titus, and 2 S. John. Originally it contained 
the whole Bible. It is a palimpsest MS. (codex 
rescripts), and has its name from the fact that 
the overlying writing consists of some treatises of 
the Syrian Father, Ephraem. In many palaeo- 
graphical details there is great similarity between 



i 4 4 



LIST OF THE 



this MS. and Cod. A. The writing is somewhat 
smaller and a little more elaborate than that of A, 
and there is but one column of long lines on a 
page; but there is the same absence of accents 
and breathings, the same simple punctuation, the 
same sort of initial capital letters, and the same 
simple subscriptions to the books. Moreover the 
Ammonian Sections are marked, and the lists of 
WrXoi are given at the beginning of each Gospel; 
while there are no marks of the division into 
chapters in the other books. These character- 
istics point to the fifth century as the date of its 
transcription. Three correctors have left their 
traces on the MS., which is one of first-rate 
importance. 

D. i. Cod. BEZJE [VI]. Cambridge University Library. 

This MS. contains portions of the Gospels in the 
Western order (viz. SS. Matthew, John, Luke, 
Mark), and the Acts; between which stood for- 
merly the Catholic Epistles, now represented by 
only a few verses of 3 S. John. Out of 534 leaves, 
which it must once have possessed, 128 are gone. 
It is a Grseco-Latin MS., written stichometrically, 
the earliest known MS. that is so, the Greek being 
placed on the left-hand page of the opening, the 
Latin on the right, and on the whole corresponding 
line for line. The Latin is thought (see W. and EL, 
Introd. p. 82) to be an adaptation of an Old Latin 
Text, which has been more or less assimilated to 
the Greek Text of the codex itself. 
The initial letters are not larger than the rest, but 
stand out a little from the line, as in cod. X ; and 
there are no marks of divisions inserted by the 



CHIEF UNCIAL MSS. 



145 



original scribe. The Ammonian sections have 
been inserted by a later hand, but the Kc(pd\aia are 
not given. 

A great deal of the interest of this MS. depends upon 
the interpolations with which it abounds, especially 
in the Acts. It is probably of Western origin, and 
is with D 2 the only characteristic MS. authority in 
Greek for the so-called 1 Western Text ' ; though 
Western readings are found in many other MSS. 

D. 2. Cod. CLAROMONTANUS [VI]. National Library 

at Paris. The Epistles of S. Paul, with a very few 
verses wanting. A very important Grseco-Latin 
MS., stichometrically written. The Latin version 
is ante-Hieronymian. 

E. 1. Cod. Basileensis [VIII]. University Library at Basel. 

The Gospels entire, except a few verses of S. Luke, 
A secondary uncial of considerable value ; collated 
both by Tischendorf and Tregelles. 

2. Cod. LAUDIANUS [VI]. Bodleian Library at Oxford. 

The Acts, with one hiatus (xxvi. 29-xxviii. 26). 
A Graeco-Latin MS., written in very short o-n'^oi. 
The Latin, like that of D 2 , is ante-Hieronymian in 
character, but it follows the Greek closely and is 
therefore not an independent authority. 

3. Cod. Sangermanensis [late IX or X], Imperial 

Library at St. Petersburg. The Epistles of S. Paul, 
but mutilated in two or three places. A Grseco- 
Latin MS. The Greek is a mere transcript of D 2 , 
and worthless as an independent witness. The 
Latin presents some differences. 

F. 1. Cod. Boreeli [IX]. Public Library at Utrecht. The 

four Gospels, but much mutilated. The MS. 

HAMMOND L 



146 



LIST OF THE 



appears to have suffered further injury since its 
first collation by Wetstein (Tischendorf). 

2. Cod. AUGIENSIS [IX]. Library of Trinity College, 
Cambridge. The Epistles of S. Paul. A Grseco- 
Latin MS. ; the Latin being an example of the 
best Vulgate, 'somewhat tampered with in parts 
to make it suit the Greek text.' Rom. i. i-iii. 19 
is wanting altogether. The Greek of 1 Cor. iii. 
8-16, vi. 7-14, Col. ii. 1-8, and Philem. 21-25, 
with the entire Epistle to the Hebrews, is wanting ; 
the Latin however remains. 

F a . Cod. Coislinianus 1 (marg.) [VII]. Paris. By this letter 
are designated some fragments of the Gospels, Acts, 
and Epistles of S. Paul, found in marginal notes to 
the great Septuagint Octateuch known as Codex 
Coislinianus 1. 

G. 1. Cod. Harleianus (formerly known as Seidelii I, or 
Wolfii A) [IX or X]. Library of British Museum 
in London. The Gospels, much mutilated. 

2. A fragment at St. Petersburg [VII] containing Acts 

ii. 45-iii. 8. 

[Before Tischendorf s eighth edition (and therefore 
in Alford's Greek Testament) the portion of Cod. 
Angelicus (see below, L^ containing the Acts used 
to be cited under this letter.] 

3. Cod. BOERNERIANUS [IX]. Royal Library at 

Dresden. The Epistles of S. Paul, but mutilated 
in places. A Grseco-Latin MS. The Latin is 
interlinear, and in a cursive character; another 
specimen of an ante-Hieronymian text altered to 
suit the Greek. As to the Greek text, this MS. is a 



CHIEF UNCIAL MSS 



147 



sister MS. to F 2 ; the two MSS. having been clearly 
copied from the same archetype : not so the Latin. 
Moreover it once formed part of the same volume 
as A (see below). 

G b . Cod. Vaticanus [IX]. Vatican Library. Some palim- 
psest fragments of the Acts. 

H. 1. Cod. Seidelii (formerly Seidelii II, or Wolfii B) [IX]. 

Public Library at Hamburg. The Gospels, a good 
deal mutilated. 

2. Cod. Mutinensis [IX]. Grand Ducal Library at 

Modena. The Acts, mutilated. 

3. Cod. COISLINIANUS 202 [VI]. Fragments of the 

Epistles of S. Paul, stichometrically written. There 
are thirty-one leaves scattered in seven different 
libraries. A MS. of special value from the fact 
that it has a subscription to the effect that it was 
written by Euthalius (see above, p. 38), and cor- 
rected by an autograph MS. of Pamphilus in the 
Library of Caesarea. It is therefore an important 
witness for the so-called Euthalian Recension 
in orixpi. 

I. Cod. TISCHENDORFIANUS II. Under this designation 

are cited (severally as I a , I b , &c.) seven fragments 
of the Gospels, Acts, and Pauline Epistles, now at 
St. Petersburg, ranging from the fifth to the seventh 
century. 

I b [IV or V]. Some palimpsest fragments of S. John in the 
British Museum, brought from a Nitrian monastery. 
[These fragments were cited as N b in Tischendorfs 
seventh edition.] 



l 2 



148 



LIST OF THE 



[J. This letter is not now used. In older critical editions 
three different MSS. might be found cited under 
it, viz.: — 

1. For the Gospels, the MS. here described under N. 

2. For the Acts, the MS. described under L 2 . 

3. For the Catholic Epistles, the MS. described under 

K. 1. Cod. Cyprius [IX]. National Library in Paris. The 
four Gospels complete. 

2. Cod. Mosquensis [IX]. Library of the Holy Synod 
at Moscow. The Catholic Epistles entire; and 
S. Paul's Epistles, with two hiatus, one of which 
extends to five verses only. 

L. 1. Cod. REGIUS [VIII]. National Library in Paris. 

The four Gospels, with five small hiatus. Said 
to bear a strong resemblance to Cod. B in its 
readings; and of special interest as giving the 
double ending of S. Mark's Gospel. 

2. Cod. Angelicus (or Passionei) [IX]. Library of 
the Augustinian monks at Rome. The Acts from 
viii. 10 (pis tov Geov), Catholic Epistles entire, and 
Pauline Epistles to Heb. xiii. 10. [Formerly cited 
for the Acts under the letters G or J.] 

M. 1. Cod. Campianus [IX or X]. National Library in 
Paris. The four Gospels complete. One of the 
earliest MSS. which gives the Pericope adulterce. 

2. Cod. RUBER [IX]. So named from the colour 
of the ink. Fragments of the two Epistles to the 
Corinthians and of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
amounting to 196 verses in all. Two folio leaves 
are at Hamburg, in the Johanneum ; and parts of 



CHIEF UNCIAL MSS. 



I 49 



two more in London, at the Library of the British 
Museum. 

N. Cod. PURPUREUS [VI, end]. Fragments of all the 
Gospels. Four leaves are in the British Museum, 
six at the Vatican, two at Vienna, and 33 in Patmos. 
The first three of these fragments used to be cited 
separately as J, N, and r respectively. The letters 
are silver upon purple vellum, the names of ' God ' 
and ' Christ ' being however in gold. The whole 
are published by Tischendorf in his Monumenta 
sacra inedita. (See also below under 3.) 

N*>. See P. 

O, O a ,...O h . Fragments, chiefly copies of the Evangelic 
Hymns (Magnificat, &c.) found in Psalters at 
different places. There are nine such, varying 
between the sixth and ninth centuries. 

P. 1. Cod. GUELPHERBYTANUS I [VI]. The Ducal 
Library at Wolfenbiittel. A palimpsest containing 
fragments of the Gospels. 

2. Cod. PORPHYRIANUS [IX]. A palimpsest con- 
taining the Acts, Catholic and Pauline Epistles, 
and the Apocalypse, with a few small hiatus. 

Q. Cod. GUELPHERBYTANUS II [V]. A MS. of the 
same place and character as P lt but containing 
fragments only of S. Luke and S. John. 

R. Cod. NITRIENSIS [VI]. British Museum in London. 
Large fragments of S. Luke. A palimpsest. 

S. 1. Cod. Vaticanus 354 [X]. Vatican Library in Rome. 

The four Gospels entire. The earliest known 



150 LIST OF THE 

dated MS. of the Greek Testament. The exact 
date is equivalent to 6 o'clock, Thursday, March i, 
949. 

2. Cod. Athous Laurse [VIII or IX]. At Athos in 
the Laura Library. Contains the Acts, Catholic 
Epistles, and Romans entire, with fragments of 
several other of the Pauline Epistles. 

T. Cod. BORGIANUS I [VJ. Library of the Propaganda 
in Rome. Fragments of S. Luke and S. John. A 
Grseco-Sahidic MS. 

T b . . T r [V to X]. Various small fragments. One of 
them T 1 contains the double ending of S. Mark's 
Gospel. (See below under p.) 

U. Cod. Wanianus [X]. Library of S. Mark's, Venice. The 
four Gospels entire. 

V. Cod. Mosquensis [IX]. Library of the Holy Synod, 
Moscow. The four Gospels, but mutilated. It is 
written stichometrically. 

W a . . Wo [VIII and IX]. Various small fragments. 

X. Cod. MONACENSIS [IX or X]. University Library in 
Munich. The four Gospels, but much mutilated. 

Y. Cod. BARBERINI 225 [VIII]. Barberini Library in 
Rome. A fragment containing 137 verses of 
S. John. 

Z. Cod. DUBLINENSIS RESCRIPTUS [VI]. Library 
of Trinity College, Dublin. A palimpsest fragment, 
with 290 verses of S. Matthew's Gospel. A valuable 
text, said by Scrivener to approach that of S rather 
than of B. 

r. Cod. Tischendorfianus IV [IX]. A codex of the four 
Gospels, complete except two passages of S. Mat- 



CHIEF UNCIAL MSS. 



thew and S. Mark ; but part of it is in the Bodleian 
Library at Oxford, part at St. Petersburg. 

A. Cod. SANGALLENSIS [IX]. Library of the monastery 
at St. Gall in Switzerland. A Graeco-Latin MS., 
containing the four Gospels entire, except S. John 
xix. 17-35, with an interlinear Latin translation. 
(See above under G 3 .) 

e» Cod. TISCHENDORFIANUS I [VII]. University 
Library at Leipsic. A few fragments of S. Matthew. 
Its text much resembles K B. 

e b ..eh [VI to IX]. Various small fragments. 

a. Cod. Oxoniensis or Tischendorfianus III [IX]. Bod- 
leian Library at Oxford. The Gospels of S. Luke 
and S. John entire. 

3. Cod. ZACYNTHIUS [VIII]. Library of the British and 
Foreign Bible Society in London. A palimpsest, 
containing considerable portions of S.Luke's Gospel, 
with a catena. Has the same chapter-division as 
B (P- 38). 

n. Cod. Petropolitanus [IX]. St. Petersburg. Contains 
the Gospels nearly entire. 

2. Cod. ROSSANENSIS [VI]. The Cathedral Library at 
Rossano in Calabria. S. Matthew and S. Mark 
almost complete; written, like Cod. N, in silver 
letters on purple vellum, the first three lines of 
each Gospel being in gold ; and probably copied 
from the same exemplar as N, like F 2 , and G 2 . It 
is the earliest known copy of Scripture which is 
adorned with miniatures in water-colour. Text 
agrees commonly with the later uncials. 



LIST OF THE 



Y [VIII], British Museum. A palimpsest, containing frag- 
ments of all four Gospels. 

*. Cod. BERATINUS [V, end]. The Archbishop's Library 
at Berat. Large portions of S. Matthew and S. 
Mark; written in silver letters on purple vellum. 
A sumptuous MS.; its text inclines to the later 
uncials. 

■9. Cod. ATHOUS Laurae [VIII or IX]. At Athos in the 
Library of Laura. The whole of the New Testa- 
ment except S. Matthew, S. Mark i. i-ix. 4, and 
the Apocalypse. It contains the short apocryphal 
ending to S. Mark's Gospel found in L as if it were 
the proper conclusion, and then the usual ending 
as an alternative. 

a. Cod. Athous Dionysii 10 [VIII or IX]. At Athos in the 
Library of Dionysius. The four Gospels entire. 

2. i. Cod. Athous Andreae B 1 [IX or X]. At Athos in the 

Library of S. Andrew. The four Gospels with a 
few small lacunae. 

2. Cod. VATICANUS 2061 [V]. At the Vatican. A 
palimpsest containing large fragments of the Acts 
and Epistles, both Catholic and Pauline. 

3. Cod. GREGORIANUS [VI, end]. A purple MS. from 

Cappadocia, now admitted to be part of N 
(Nestle). 

V.. 18 . Several fragments [V to IX]. Discovered at Sinai by 
Dr. J. R. Harris. I 12 contains the double ending 
of S.Mark. 

p. The same fragment cited above as T 1 , which contains the 
double ending of S. Mark. 



CHIEF UNCIAL MSS. 



153 



The following has been recently discovered : — 

Cod. CHRYSOPURPUREUS SINOPENSIS [VI]. National 
Library at Paris. Forty-three leaves of purple 
vellum with the text in gold letters throughout; 
therein differing from Codd. N and 2, but re- 
sembling the fragment N a . It contains also five 
miniature paintings, of which four are in excellent 
preservation. The text consists of portions, not all 
continuous, of S. Matthew's Gospel. The readings 
indicate that it is a third MS. copied from the same 
archetype as N and 2. The Rev. H. S. Cronin 
{Journal of Theological Studies, July, 1901) thinks 
that the amount of text contained in the two leaves 
of Cod. N a is too much in excess of that contained 
in two leaves of Cod. Sinop., to allow of the 
suggestion that they are parts of the same MS. 
The Sinopensis was found and purchased from 
an old woman at Sinope by a French officer in 
Dec. 1899. 



APPENDIX D 



A LIST OF THE LATIN CODICES MOST COMMONLY CITED IN 
CRITICAL EDITIONS 

i. Of the Text before S.Jeromes Revision. 

. Cod. Vercellensis [IV]. At Vercelli. The four Gospels, 
but somewhat mutilated. Written in silver letters 
on purple vellum. Probably the best example of 
. an ante-Hieronymian text. In a, a v b, d, e,f, ff v i, 
h, q, r, the Gospels stand in the Western order, viz. 
SS. Matthew, John, Luke, Mark. 

2 . Fragmenta Curiensia [V or VI]. At Coire. Two 
fragments of S. Luke. Ante-Hieronymian (see 
below, n). 

. Cod. Veronensis [?IV or V]. At Verona. The four 
Gospels with several hiatus : also in silver letters 
on purple vellum. A good example of an ante- 
Hieronymian text. 

c. Cod. Colberiinus [XII]. At Paris. In the four Gospels 
it gives an ante-Hieronymian text : the rest of it is 
by a different hand, and gives S. Jerome's text. 

/. i. Is the Latin version of ~D X (see p. 144). Of little 
critical importance, except where the Greek is 
wanting. 

2. Is the Latin version of D 2 (see p. 145). 

?. 1. Cod. Palatinus [? IV or V]. At Vienna: and one leaf 
at Dublin. A MS., purple with gold and silver 



LATIN CODICES CITED IN CRITICAL EDITIONS 155 



letters, much mutilated, containing fragments only 
of SS. Matthew and Mark, and very nearly the 
whole of SS. Luke and John. An ante-Hierony- 
mian text, of the African type, slightly altered. 

2. The Latin version of E 2 (see p. 145). 

3. The Latin version of E 3 (see p. 145). 

f. Cod. Brixianus [VI]. At Brescia. The four Gospels, 
with only two hiatus in S. Mark. An important 
MS., considered by Westcott and Hort (Introd. 
p. 81) to be an example of the Italian text of the 
Old Latin. 

f, ff\ f 2 - Codd. Corbeienses [ff X, ff 1 VIII or IX, ff 2 

probably VI]. They take their name from the 
Abbey of Corbey in Picardy, to which they once 
belonged, ff is at St. Petersburg, and contains 
the Epistle of S. James; ff 1 is also at St. Peters- 
burg, and contains S. Matthew's Gospel only, ff 2 
is at Paris, and contains the four Gospels almost 
entire. The text is mixed ; i. e. ante-Hieronymian 
altered by some independent corrector. 

g v Cod. Sangermanensis I [IX]. Paris. The second volume 
of a complete Bible, of which the first is lost. 
Cited by Wordsworth as g 1 for S. Matt., the text 
of which is ante-Hieronymian; and as G for the 
rest of the N. T. which is Vulg. with older readings 
intermixed. 

g 2 . Cod. Sangermanensis II [X]. Paris. The Gospels. A 
mixed text. 

g. The Latin version of G 3 . (See p, 146.) The Epistles of 

S. Paul. 

N.B. This letter is also used to designate Cod. Gigas 
(see below, 7) for the Acts and Apocalypse. 



156 A LIST OF THE LATIN CODICES 

h. 1. Cod. Clarojnonianus [IV or V]. Vatican Library at 

Rome. The Gospel of S. Matthew is ante-Hierony- 
mian; the other three are of S. Jerome's Revision. 
2. Cod. Floriacensis [VI or VII]. Paris. A palimpsest 
containing fragments of the Apocalypse, Acts, 1 
and 2 S. Peter, and 1 S. John. (Blass calls this 
MS./) 

i. Cod. Vindobonensis [VI or VII]. Vienna. Portions of 

S. Mark and S. Luke. A very valuable ante- 
Hieronymian example ; in purple with gold and 
silver letters. 

j. Cod. Sarzannensis [V], Monte Cassino. Named from 
Sarezzano, near Tortona, where it was discovered. 
Purple with silver letters. Fragments of S. John. 
Text peculiar and valuable. 

k. Cod. Bobiensis [V]. Turin. Fragments of S. Matthew, 
and one of S. Mark with two small lacunae. An 
important ante-Hieronymian text, of the African 
type. 

/, Cod. Rhedigerianus [VII]. Breslau. The four Gospels, 
mutilated. A mixed text. 

m. Cardinal Mai's Speculum. This is really a collection of 
proof-passages from the Old and New Testaments, 
erroneously ascribed to S. Augustine. It includes 
extracts from all the books of the N. T. except 
Philemon, Hebrews, and 3 S. John. It exists in 
several MSS., the oldest of which, Cod. Floriacensis, 
is [VIII]. Ante-Hieronymian : Spanish. 

n. Cod. Sangallensis [V or VI]. St. Gall. Fragments of 
SS. Matthew and Mark. Ante-Hieronymian, part 
of the same MS. as a v 

[VII or VIII]. A fragment of S. Mark, viz. xvi. 14-20. 



COMMONLY CITED IN CRITICAL EDITIONS 157 

p [VII or VIII]. A fragment of S. John. This, as well as 

the last fragment, at St. Gall. 
q. Cod. Monacensis [VI or VII]. Munich. Fragments of 

each of the Gospels. Ante-Hieronymian, of the 

Italian type. 

N.B. This letter (q) is also used by Dr. Hort to designate 
the two leaves of Cod. Frisingensis which contain the Catholic 
Epistles. 

r (for Paul. Epp.). Cod. Frisingensis [partly V or VI, partly 
VII]. Munich. Very interesting examples of three 
ante-Hieronymian texts, in twenty-four leaves, edited 
by Ziegler with elaborate prolegomena. There are 
fragments of Rom., 1 and 2 Cor., Gal., Eph., Phil., 
1 Thess., 1 Tim., Heb., 1 S. John. One leaf, 
containing the end of Phil, and first ten verses 
of 1 Thess., stands alone. The two leaves, con- 
taining 1 S. John iii. 8 to the end of the Epistle, 
belong to another text : the interest of this portion 
being that it contains the verses of the Heavenly 
Witnesses. The remaining twenty-one leaves present 
more remarkable agreements with the readings of 
S. Augustine and Capreolus than any text hitherto 
known, and are therefore thought to be an example 
of the Italian type of text. 

r v Cod. Usserianus I [VI late, or VII]. Trinity College, 
Dublin. The Gospels in the usual Western order 
(edited by T. K. Abbott, 1884). Ante-Hieronymian. 

r 2 (for the Gospels). Cod. Usserianus II [IX or X]. Also 
at Trinity College, Dublin. The Gospels, much 
mutilated. S. Matt, in ante-Hieronymian text; the 
rest closely allied to the Vulgate. 

r s (for Paul. Epp.). Cod. Gottvicensis [VI or VII]. Fragments 
of Romans and Galatians. 



158 A LIST OF THE LATIN CODICES 



s. I. Fragmenta Ambrosiana [VI]. Milan. Four leaves 
containing fragments of S. Luke. 
2. Another Cod. Bobiensis [V or VI]. Vienna. Palim- 
psest fragments of the Acts, S. James, and 1 S. 
Peter. 

/. Fragmenta Bernensia [V]. Three fragments of S. Mark. 
Ante- Hieronymian. 

v. Fragmentum Vindobonense [VII]. Vienna. A short frag- 
ment of S. John. Ante- Hieronymian. 

gue. Cod. Guelpherbytanus [VI]. Wolfenbiittel. A fragment, 
in the same great palimpsest as P, and Q, con- 
taining about thirty-three verses of the Epistle to 
the Romans. 

y. Cod. Gigas Holmiensis [XIII]. Stockholm. Contains 
the Old and New Testaments, with other matter. 
The chief part of the New Testament seems to 
give S. Jerome's revision; but the Acts and 
Apocalypse appear to be Old Latin; the text of 
the Acts being of the African type, that of the Apo- 
calypse 'late European/ Often quoted as c g Acts.' 

§. The interlinear version of A. (See above, pp. 146 and 

2. Of S. Jerome s Revision. 
Only a few of the best known are here mentioned. 

am. Cod. Amiatinus [c. 700]. Laurentian Library at Florence. 

Old and New Testaments nearly perfect. A first- 
rate text. (Wordsworth's A.) 

aur. or holm. Cod. Aureus Holmiensis [VII or VIII]. Stock- 
holm. The four Gospels. The text is said to be 
based on the Vulgate, but with a large number of 
ante-Hieronymian readings interpolated. 



COMMONLY CITED IN CRITICAL EDITIONS 159 



bam. Cod. Bambergensis [IX]. Royal Library, Bamberg. 

The whole Bible, except the Apocalypse. The 
Alcuinian text. (Wordsworth's B 2 .) 

bigot. Cod. Bigotianus [VIII or IX]. Paris. The four 
Gospels, mutilated. (Wordsworth's B.) 

cantab. Cod. Corporis Christi. [VII]. C. C. College, Cam- 
bridge. The four Gospels. (Wordsworth's X.) 

demid. Cod. Demidovianus [XII]. The whole Bible. Only 
partially collated. 

dunelm. Cod. Dunelmensis [VII or VIII]. The four Gospels. 
' De manu Bedce! 

em. Cod. Emmeranus [IX]. Ratisbon. The Gospels in 
gold uncials, with splendid miniatures. 

ept. Cod. Epternacensis [VIII or IX]. Paris. The four 
Gospels. (Wordsworth's 3\) 

for. Cod. Forojuliensis [VI or VII]. At Cividale near Udine. 

Gospels of SS. Matthew and Luke, and nearly 
the whole of S. John. Part of S. Mark's Gospel is 
at Venice, and part at Prague. (See below, prag.) 
(Wordsworth's J.) 

ful. Cod. Fuldensis [VI]. Abbey of Fulda in Hesse Cassel. 

The whole of the New Testament. This MS. has a 
special interest from its connection with the problem 
of Tatian's Diatessaron. (Wordsworth's F.) 

harl. 1772 [VIII]. A MS. in the Harleian collection of the 
British Museum, containing all the Epistles and 
much of the Apocalypse. It is said to exhibit a 
mixed text of old with revised readings. (Words- 
worth's Z 2 .) 

harl 1775 [VI or VII]. British Museum. The Gospels. 
(Wordsworth's Z.) 



l6o A LIST OF THE LATIN CODICES 

huh. Cod. Hubertianus [IX or X]. British Museum. The 
Old and New Testaments. (Wordsworth's H.) 

ing. Cod. Ingoldstadiensis [VII]. Munich. The Gospels, 
much mutilated. (Wordsworth's I.) 

kar. Cod. Karolinus [IX]. British Museum. The Old and 
New Testaments. A good specimen of the Alcui- 
nian revision. (Wordsworth's K.) 

mart. Cod. Martini- Turinensis [VIII]. Turin. The four 
Gospels. 

med. Cod. Mediolanensis [VI]. Milan. The four Gospels. 
(Wordsworth's M.) 

oxon. Cod. Oxoniensis [VII]. The Bodleian Library. The 
four Gospels, with three small hiatus. Said to have 
been given by Pope Gregory the Great to our 
S. Augustine. (Wordsworth's O.) 

pe. ox per. Fragmenta Perusina. Very ancient. At Perugia. 
Fragments of S. Luke. (Wordsworth's P.) 

prag. Under this designation Tischendorf cites the portion" 
of Cod. Forojuliensis said above to be at Prague. 

san. Cod. Sangallensis [VI]. Part at St. Gall, part at Zurich. 

Fragments of the Gospels and Pauline Epistles; 
the latter being palimpsest. 

ston. Cod. Stony hurstensis [VII]. Stonyhurst. S. John's 
Gospel. (Wordsworth's S.) 

theod. Cod. Theodulfianus [IX]. Paris. The Old and New 
Testaments. (Wordsworth's 0.) 

ml. Cod. Vallicellensis [IX]. Rome. The Old and New 
Testaments; an Alcuinian text. (Wordsworth's V.) 



COMMONLY CITED IN CRITICAL EDITIONS l6l 



The following are examples of a British group of MSS., in 
which many valuable Old Latin readings are found. 

dull The Book of Armagh [IX]. Trinity College, Dublin. 

Contains the whole New Testament. (Words- 
worth's D.) 

dunelm. Cod. Dunehnensis [VII or VIII]. Cathedral Library, 
Durham. The Gospels mutilated. (Wordsworth's D.) 

durmachensis. The Book of Burrow [VI]. Trinity College, 
Dublin. The Gospels. (Cited by Wordsworth as 
durmach.) 

egertonensis [VIII or IX]. British Museum. The four Gospels, 
mutilated. (Wordsworth's E.) 

kenanensis. The Book ofKells [VII or VIII]. Trinity College, 
Dublin. (Wordsworth's Q.) 

lichfieldensis, formerly called Landavensis [VII or VIII]. The 
Chapter Library at Lichfield. S. Matt., S. Mark, 
and S. Luke i. i — iii. 9. (Wordsworth's L.) Called 
also ' S. Chad's Gospels.' 

lind. The Book of Lindisfarne [VII or VIII]. Sometimes 
called ' The Book of Durham.' British Museum 
Library. The Gospels, with an interlinear version 
in the Northumbrian dialect. (Wordsworth's Y.) 

mac-regol or Rushworth [Early IX]. Bodleian Library. The 
four Gospels. (Wordsworth's R.) 

fragm. Ultratrajectina [VII or VIII]. University Library, 
Utrecht. At the end of the 1 Utrecht Psalter ' are 
some fragments of S. Matt. i. 1 — iii. 4 and S. John 
i. 1-2 1. (Wordsworth's U.) 



Others are thought to belong to a Spanish group, as — 
cav. Cod. Cavensis [VIII or IX]. The Monastery of the 

HAMMOND M 



1 62 LATIN CODICES CITED IN CRITICAL EDITIONS 



Holy Trinity at Corpo di Cava, near Salerno. The 
whole Bible. (Wordsworth's C.) 

emil. Cod. S. Emiliani [X]. At the Royal Academy of 
History at Madrid. The second volume of a 
complete Bible. 

kon x . [X]. The Chapter Library at Leon. Like emil., the 
second volume of a complete Bible. 

UoriK [X]. At the church of S. Isidore in Leon. The whole 
New Testament. 

tol. Cod. Toletanus [X]. Once at Toledo, now in the National 
Library at Madrid. The whole Bible written in 
Gothic characters. (Wordsworth's T.) 



APPENDIX E 



A LIST OF FATHERS WHOSE WRITINGS ARE OF IMPORTANCE IN 
THE CRITICISM OF THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 

Those whose works are in Latin are printed in italics : 
those which are of primary importance are in capitals. With 
the exception of a very few writers, who are frequently cited 
in critical editions, none are inserted of later date than the 
fourth century. In each case the century is given to which 
the working-life of the writer belonged. This must be re- 
membered in comparing these notices with some lists in 
which the year of the birth or death only is given. A general 
description of the works of each is added. 

AMBROSE, Bishop of Milan [IV]. Commentaries, Ser- 
mons, Epistles, and Treatises on various ecclesiastical 
subjects. 

AMBROSIASTER: perhaps Hilary the Deacon [IV]. 
So called because his Commentaries on S. Paul's 
Epistles were frequently published among the works 
of S. Ambrose. 

ANDREAS OF CAPPADOCIA, Bishop of Csesarea in 
Cappadocia [VI]. A commentary on the Apocalypse. 
(Not to be confounded with Andreas of Crete, a writer 
of the next century.) 

Aphraates [IV]. A Syrian Bishop, the author of twenty- 
two Homilies, commonly but erroneously attributed 
to Jacobus Nisibenus. 

M 2 



164 



A LIST OF THE FATHERS 



Arnobius [III and IV]. A native of Africa. His only 
known work is an apologetic treatise, Libri viz 
adversus gentes. 

ATHANASIUS, Archbishop of Alexandria [IV]. Orations, 
Epistles, and Treatises, chiefly on subjects connected 
with the Arian controversy. 

AUGUSTINE, Bishop of Hippo [IV and V]. His works 
are very numerous. The most important are, his 
great work de Civitate Dei, his Confessions and 
Retractations, and his Commentary on the Psalms. 
There are besides many Letters and Sermons, as well 
as Controversial and Philosophical Treatises. He is 
supposed to use the so-called Versio Itala in his 
quotations. 

Barnabas [II early]. An Apostolic writer, but not the 
Barnabas of the Acts of the Apostles : the author of 
the Epistle which goes by that name. 

BASIL (THE GREAT), Bishop of Csesarea in Cappa- 
docia [IV]. Homilies, Ascetic writings, Letters, and 
some Treatises on special subjects. 

Cczsarius, Bishop of Aries [VI]. Homilies, and a book, 
De gratia ct libero arbitrio against the semi- 
Pelagians. 

Capreolus [V], Bishop of Carthage. The author of at 
least two extant Epistles, which are of some value in 
connection with the discussion of the early forms of 
the Latin version. 

Cassiodorus [VI]. At first a statesman, then a monk, of 
Italy. His works are various ; Historical, Literary, 
and Scientific Treatises, as well as others expository, 
or illustrative of the Scriptures. 



COMMONLY CITED 



I6 5 



CHRYSOSTOM of Antioch, Archbishop of Constanti- 
nople [IV]. Homilies, Commentaries, Letters, and 
Treatises on special subjects. 

CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA [II and III]. His three 
principal works are the Ao'yo? TTporpenTiKbs 717569 "EAX^a? 
(a Hortatory Address to the Gentiles), ncuSaycoyos, 
and 2rpcofj.aT€h (Miscellanies). There is also a short 
practical treatise, tls 6 a-co^opevos nXova-ios ; 

Clement of Rome [I], Bishop of Rome. An Epistle in the 
name of the Church at Rome to the Church at Corinth. 
The (so-called) Second Epistle is spurious : it is really 
a Homily, and is assigned to the first half of cent. II. 
The (Clementine} Homilies and Recognitions are also 
falsely attributed to him : but they are of the second 
century, and therefore give valuable evidence. A very 
early Latin Version of the Epistle was discovered and 
published in 1894 by Dom Morin. 

Constitutiones Apostolicse. A treatise on the various 
duties of Christians, religious and social, public and 
private. Compiled probably by the Pseudo-Ignatius, 
at or near Antioch, in the latter part of the fourth 
century. (See Brightman, 'Liturgies Eastern and 
Western/ Introd. p. xxix.) 

CYPRIAN, Bishop of Carthage [III]. A number of 
short treatises on various subjects, apologetic, ex- 
pository, and controversial ; and a valuable collection 
of Letters. 

CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA, Bishop [V]. Commentaries, 
Homilies, Letters, and Dialogues on some of the 
chief Mysteries of the Faith. 

Cyril of Jerusalem, Bishop [IV].' Kar^o-"^ or Lectures 



166 



A LIST OF THE FATHERS 



on the Faith and Doctrines of the Church to Cate- 
chumens and Newly-baptized Persons. 

Damascenus (Joannes) [VIII]. Numerous short treatises on 
controversial, theological, and ecclesiastical subjects. 

DIDYMUS, of Alexandria [IV]. Liber de Spiritu Sancto, 
de Trinitate, and Adversus Manichceos. 

Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria [III]. Treatises, chiefly 
controversial ; and Epistles. Only extracts and frag- 
ments remain. 

Ephraem Syrus [IV]. Treatises, theological and moral, 
Homilies and Commentaries ; they are in Syriac, and 
of use in connection with the Syriac versions. 

EPIPHANIUS, Bishop of Constantia in Cyprus [IV]. 
Ancorafus, on the doctrine of the Trinity ; Panarium, 
a treatise against Heresies ; De Ponderibus et Men- 
suris Liber. 

EUSEBIUS OF CESAREA, Bishop [IV]. His chief 
works are the Chronicon, PrcEparatio Evangelica, 
Demonstratio Evangelica, Historia Ecclesiastica, De 
Martyribus PalcestincB, De Vita Constantini, Onoma- 
sticon, and several controversial treatises. 

Eustathius, Bishop of Antioch [IV]. Extracts of his 
expositions of Holy Scripture in Catenae, and quota- 
tions from some of his other works are all that 
remain. 

Euthymius Zigabenus [XII]. A Greek monk of Con- 
stantinople. His chief work for our purpose is a 
Commentary on the Four Gospels, compiled from 
the writings of S. Chrysostom and other early 
Fathers. 

Fulgentius [V and VI], Bishop of Ruspe. Several con- 
troversial treatises against semi-Pelagianism. 



COMMONLY CITED 



Gaudentius, a Donatist Bishop in Numidia [early V]. Two 
letters to Dulcitius on the Donatist position, which 
S. Augustine answered. 

Gregory of Nazianzus, in Cappadocia, Bishop [IV]. Ser- 
mons, Letters, and Poems. 

Gregory of Nyssa, in Cappadocia, Bishop [IV]. Trea- 
tises, doctrinal and practical; Discourses, Letters, 
Biographies. 

Gregory Thaumaturgus, Bishop of Neocsesarea [III]. A 
Paraphrase of Ecclesiastes, an Explanation of the 
Creeds an Epistola Canonica, and a Panegyrical Ad- 
dress to Origen, are his extant works. 

Gregory (the Great) [VI]. Bishop of Rome. His chief 
works are Commentaries, Homilies, a book on the 
Pastoral Office, and Letters. 

Hegesippus [II], an early writer on Church History. 
Only some extracts remain, preserved by Eusebius. 

Hermas [II]. The author of a book of Visions and 
Allegories called The Shepherd, highly esteemed in 
the early Church, and for a time read publicly. Our 
authority for it is Cod. K (pp. 43-4). 

HILARY of Poictiers {Piclavensis), Bishop [IV]. His 
chief work is De Trinitate Libri XII. He wrote 
Commentaries on the Psalms and on S. Matthew's 
Gospel. Several smaller treatises are extant. 

Hippolytus, Bishop of Portus [III]. The author of numerous 
works, chronological, controversial and exegetical, 
most of which have been lost. Almost the whole of 
his Refutation of all Heresies, a Treatise on Anti- 
christ, and considerable portions of Homilies on Daniel, 
with a number of Fragments of other books survive. 

Ignatius [I and II early]. Bishop of Antioch. Epistles. 



i68 



A LIST OF THE FATHERS 



IREN^EUS, Bishop of Lyons [II]. Only one work of his 
remains, Adversus Hcereses ; and of this only frag- 
ments of the original Greek are extant. But there 
is an old Latin translation, apparently contempora- 
neous with the original. The translator gives the 
quotations from Scripture in an ante-Hieronymian 
version : hence the authority of S. Irenaeus is of ser- 
vice in the criticism both of the Greek and Latin 
texts. The original and the translation are always 
cited separately, thus : Iren(iexi), and Iren(z>z/.). 

JEROME [IV]. Epistles, which are chiefly disquisitions 
on various Theological or Moral questions : Tracts, 
biographical or polemical ; Commentaries ; the Chro- 
nica Eusedii, translated and extended ; the Bibliotheca 
Divina, which is the result of his critical labours on 
the Text of the Old and New Testaments. 

Justin Martyr [II]. Two Apologies for the Christians, ad- 
dressed to Antoninus Pius and Aurelius respectively ; 
and a Dialogue with Trypho, a Jew. 

Lactantius [III]. Divince Instiiutiones, a philosophical 
introduction to Christianity, against the pagan system. 
An Epitome of the same, and two or three other smaller 
pieces. 

LEO the Great, Bishop of Rome [V]. Homilies and 
Letters. 

LUCIFER OF C^£Z/^/(Calaritanus), Bishop [IV]. 
Several treatises on questions of dogma and discipline 
arising out of the Arian controversy. Useful in con- 
sequence of the numerous quotations from an ante- 
Hieronymian version of the Scriptures. 

[Marcion of Pontus, the Heretic [II]. None of his works 
survive independently, but there are many quotations 



COMMONLY CITED 



169 



in the writings of Tertullian and Epiphanius which 
are cited as Marcion- tert ., Marcion-^P* 1 . respectively. 
The special interest in him for our purpose is that 
he was accused of mutilating the N. T. by excision, 
and corrupting it by interpolation; in fact of 
' editing ' a text for himself. His N. T. consisted of 
S. Luke's Gospel only and ten Epistles of S. Paul, 
omitting 1 and 2 Tim., Titus and Hebrews. His text 
however appears to have resembled in many particulars 
the so-called ' Western Text/] 

Methodius Patarensis, Bishop [III]. Treatises on Free- 
will, the Resurrection, and Virginity. 

(Ecumenius, Bishop of Tricca in Thrace [X]. Commen- 
taries on all the books of the New Testament but the 
Gospels. 

Optatus, Bishop of Milevis in Numidia [IV]. A treatise in 
six (? seven) books against the Donatists. 

ORIGEN [III], The Tetrapla and Hexapla editions of 
the Old Testament ; exegetical works, in the forms 
of Commentaries, Scholia, and Homilies. Of the rest 
of his voluminous writings only a few letters and 
extracts remain. 

Papias [II early]. Bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia. 
Aoyioov KvpiaKwu egrjyrjais, in five books. Only frag- 
ments remain, embedded in the works of Eusebius 
and other writers. 

Polycarp [II], Bishop of Smyrna. An Epistle to the 
Philippian Church. 

Primasius [VI]. A commentator from whom an almost 
continuous text of the Apocalypse in an old Latin 
(African) text can be recovered. 



170 



A LIST OF THE FATHERS 



Prudentius [V]. Hymns and religious poems. 

Rufinus of Aquileia [IV]. An Exposition of the Apostles' 
Creed. An Ecclesiastical History. A collection of 
Biographies; and several other original works, as 
well as numerous translations of Greek works, among 
which are the Homilies of Origen, the works of Gre- 
gory of Nazianzus, and the Recognitions of Clement 
of Rome. He was a contemporary of S. Jerome. 

Tatian [II]. ratio ad Grcecos, an Apologetic Treatise, 
in Greek. Diatessaron, a continuous Harmony com- 
piled from the four Gospels ; probably originally in 
Syriac, but no copy is known to exist. The materials 
for constructing it at present are (i) a Latin Harmony 
based upon Tatian's in the Cod. Fuldensis. (2) An 
Arabic Harmony translated from the Syriac, published 
with a Latin translation in 1883. (3) An Armenian 
Version of a Syriac Commentary, by Ephraem, upon 
the Harmony, published with a Latin translation in 
1876. (4) Some quotations in Aphraates and other 
Syriac writers which must be derived from Tatian's 
Harmony (see also above, pp. 62, 63, 87). 

TER TULLIA N, of Carthage [II and III]. Numerous 
treatises on various points of order and discipline : 
some also controversial. His quotations of Scripture 
are from the Old Latin. 

Theodore of Mopsuestia (in Cilicia), Bishop [V]. His 
chief works were exegetical. His Commentaries on 
the Twelve Minor Prophets are extant entire. Frag- 
ments only of his Commentaries on the Books of the 
New Testament remain, in catenae. 

Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus or Cyrrhus in Syria [V]. 
His works were partly exegetical, including a Com- 



COMMONLY CITED 



I 7 I 



mentary on S. Paul's Epistles, partly historical and 
partly controversial. 

Theophylact, Archbishop of Bulgaria [XI]. Commentaries 
founded on those of S. Chrysostom. 

Tichonius (or Tyconius, as it should apparently be spelt) 
[late IV]. A Donatist writer of Africa, whose Book 
of Rules (a system of interpretation of prophecy) has 
been carefully edited by Mr. F. C. Burkitt in { Texts 
and Studies ' (III. 1) ; and is of great value in the 
study of the Old Latin Version and other connected 
problems of Textual Criticism (see as above, Introd. 
pp. cxvi-cxviii). His other writings, Bellum Inlestinum 
(a work on the Donatist controversy) and a Com- 
mentary on the Apocalypse, are only known through 
quotations made by other authors. 

Victor Antiochenus [V]. Commentaries, of which frag- 
ments remain extant in catenae. 

Vidorinus [IV]. Commentaries on the Epistles to the 
Galatians, Philippians, and Ephesians. His quotations 
are from the Latin before S. Jerome's revision. 

Vigilius [V]. Bishop of Thapsus in Byzacium (Africa), 
author of several controversial works, including ap- 
parently some which have claimed other names, e. g. 
Athanasius, Idacius Clarus, or Augustine, as their 
authors. 



APPENDIX F 



TABLE I 

Giving a conspectus of the authority of the chief Uncial Manuscripts 
for the different parts of the New Testament in successive 
centuries. 



Century. 


Gospels. 


Acts and 
Cath. Epp. 


Pauline Epp. 


Apocalypse. 


IV. 




SB, 


KB X 




V. 


ACQT* 


AC2 2 


AC!J 2 


AC 


VI. 


DiNPiRZS 


D X E 2 


D 2 H 3 




VII. 


Fa 


F a G 2 


F 




VIII. 


E : LjV YABTTfl 






B 2 


IX. 


F.Hj KiMiXrAAn 


H 2 K 2 L 2 P2S i! 


F 2 G 3 K 2 L 2 M 2 P 2 S 2 


B 2 


X. 






E 3 M 2 





TABLE II 1 



Showing the contents of those MSS. which are designated by 
the same letters in different parts of the New Testament. 





Gospels. 


Acts and 
Cath. Epp. 


Pauline Epp. 


Apocalypse. 




SINAITICUS 


A 


ALEXANDRINUS 


B 


VATICANUS 


Basilianus 


C 


EPHRAEMI 


D 


BEZ^E 


CLAROM. 


{deesf) 


E 


Basileensis 


LAUD. 


Sangerman. 


{deesf) 


F 
G 


Boreeli 


{deesf) 


AUGIEN. 


{deest) 


Harleianus 


(Frag. Tiseh.) 


BOERN. 


{dee st) 


TT 
±1 


Seidelii 


Mutinensis 


COISL. 


ideesf) 


K 


Cyprius 


Mosquensis 


{deest) 


L 


REGIUS 


Angelicus 


{deesf) 


M 


Campianus 


{deaf) 


RUBER 


{deest) 


P 


GUELPH. 


PORPHYRIANUS 


s • 


Vaticanus 354 


Athous Laurae 


{deesf) 


n 


Athous 
Andreae B 1 


VATICANUS 2061 


{deesf) 



1 This table is due to the Rev. A. J. Miller, M.A., of Exeter College. 



INDEX I 



OF TEXTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT REFERRED TO OR 
DISCUSSED IN THE COURSE OF THIS WORK. 



Matthew. 


TAGE 


S. Mark. page 


i. 16 


. 28 


ix. 3 . . .26 


i. 18 


• 75 


ix. 29 . . .28 


i. 19 


. 73 


x. 18 . . .88 


iv. 13 


• 55 


x. 30 . . . 24 


vi. 1 


26, 108 


xiv. 30, 68, 72 . .26 


vi. 13 


. 28 


xv. 28 . . . 42 


xi. 16 


'• 23 


xv. 42 . . . 19 


xii. 20 


• 23 


xvi. 8 . . .39 


xii. 46 


. 19 


xvi. 9-20 . 28, 46, 49, 131 


xiii. 2 


. 19 




xiii. 14 


23 




xv. 8 


. 90 


S. Luke. 


xvi. 19 


• 5° 


ii. 33 . . .28 


xvii. 2 


. 26 


iii. 14 . . .23 


xvii. 21 


. 28 


v. 4-7 . . 39 


xix. 17 


. 26, 28, 88 


vi. 5 . . .86 


XX. 22 


. 91 


vi. 48 . . .25 


xx. 28 


. 92 


vii. 31 . « 2 7 


xxi. 28-31 . 


. 125 


ix. 49 . . .22 


xxii. 15 


.40 


x. 20 . . .23 


xxiii. 32 


• 23 


x. 22 . . . 27 


xxv. 16 


. no 


xi. 2-4 . . .92 


xxvi. 39 


18, 22 


xviii. 19 . .88 


xxvi. 52 


• 25 


xviii. 25 . . 23 


xxvii. 16 


. 86 


xxi. 38 . .18 






xxii. 43, 44 18, 42, 62, 103, 123 


Mark. 




xxiii. 10 . -19 


ii. 22 


. 109 


xxiii. 48 . .86 


iii. 29 


27, 108 


xxiii. 53 . .86 


iv. 9 


. 86 


xxiv. 1 . . 23 


v. 29 


• 23 


xxiv. 6, 12, 36, 40 . . 86 



INDEX I 



175 



S. John. 


PAGE 


2 Corinthians. 


page 


i. 13 




24 


viii. 4, 5 




. 24 


1. 15 




24 








i. 18 




28 


Galatians. 






ii. z 




86 


v. 21 




• 45 


V 1 A 




122 


Ephesians. 






vi. 39 




22 


i. 1 




46, 49 


vii. 8 


28, 115 








vii. 37 




19 


1 Thessalonians. 




vii. 53-viii. 11 18 


, 46, 49, 66, 


116 


i- 3 




• 23 


xii. 6 




24 


ii. 7 


• 


. 24 


xxi. 1-6 




39 












1 Timothy. 






ACTS. 






iii. 16 




22, 73, no, 118 


vii. 42 




23 


Hebrews. 






viii. 9 




19 


ix. 14 


• 


. 49 


vm. 37 


. 14, 28, 76 


x. 23 


• 


• 55 


ix. 4 




26 


xii. 20 




. 26 


x. 30 




28 








xi. 20 




130 


1 S. Peter. 






xiii. 23 




22 


ii. 3 




• 2 3 


xv. 16, 1 7 




6 


iii. 13 




. 24 


xv. 24 




24 


1 S. John. 






xv. 34 




24 




. 22 




ii. 23 


* 


xx. 28 


28, 


127 




. 76 


xxi. 28 




19 
25 


iv. 3 




xxi. 31 




v. 7 




• 14, 57, "3 


xxvi. 14 




26 


Apocalypse. 
i. 1 




. 24 


Romans. 






i. 4 






vii. 11 




55 


3 




T A 
14 


viii. 28 




108 


ii. 9 






xiii. 9 




26 


v. 14 

vi. 1, 3, 5, 


7 


T A 
T A 1A 


1 Corinthians. 






xii. 17 




. 76 


ii. 9 




122 


xiii. 10 




. 14 


vii. 5 




28 


xiv. 5 




• 14 


xi. 29 




109 


xvii. 8 




. 24 


xii. 28 




55 


xxii. 16-21 




. 14 



INDEX II 



GENERAL 



Acts of the Apostles, modes of 

dividing, 41. 
^Ethiopic Version, 55, 70. 
Africa, 51, 115. 

African group of MSS., 84, 85. 

African (Latin) text, 58, 61. 

Alcuin's revision, 59, 61. 

Alexandrian group of MSS., 85, 99. 

— readings, 96, 97, 101. 

Alexandrine, 84. 

Alford, Dean, 129. 

Amiatinus Codex, 61. 

' Ammonian ' Sections, 38-40. 

Ammonius, 38. 

dva-yvouaeis (. . Cfxara), 42. 

Andreas of Cappadocia, 42. 

avTi@a\\€iv } 19. 

avTiXeySfxtva, 47. 

Antiocb, 7, 99, 101. 

Antiquity of a Text, test of the, 97. 

Apocalypse, divisions of, 42. 

Apostrophus, the, 49. 

Ardua Iectiones, 108. 

Argenteus Codex, 69. 

Ariston, 140. 

Armenian Version, 71. 

Asiatic group of MSS., 84, 85. 

Assimilation of terminations, 24, 29. 

Athanasius, Epistle of, to Marcel- 

linus, 141. 
Augustine, 89. 

'Authentic,' meaning of, 115 n. 

Baptismal profession of faith, 28. 
Barnabas, Epistle of, 43, 47, 120. 
Barsalibsei Codex, 66. 
Bashmuric Version, 68. 
Bengel, 84, 108. 
Bentley, 83, 103. 
Beza, 15. 

Bezse Codex, 15, 144. 
Bickell, Dr., 67. 
Blass, 2, 156. 
Bohairic Version, 67, 68. 



Books of the New Testament, order 

of, 32-34- 
Britain, revision of Latin Versions 

in, 59-60. 
Brixianus Codex, 61, 69, 96, 155. 
Buddhists, Sacred Books of the, 

2 n. 

Burgon, Dean, 2, 4, 8, 28, 34, 39 n., 

47, 118, 131, 134, 135. 
Byzantine group of MSS., 84, 85. 

Csesarea, 101. 

Canonicity, 35, 118, 125, 131. 
Canons, Eusebian, 39, 40, 135, 142, 
143- 

— of criticism, value of, 105, in. 
Carolinus Codex, 70. 

Catena, Cramer's, 73. 
Characteristic expressions, 1 10. 
Chrysostom, 34, 73. 
Claromontanus Codex, 101. 
Clement of Rome, Epistles of, 142. 
Clementine Vulgate, 60. 
Colinaeus, 14. 
Colometry, 37-38. 
Colon, 37. 

Comparative criticism of New Tes- 
tament defined, I. 

— applied to secular writings, 29. 

— opposite views of, 2. 

— problems of, 1. 
Complutensian Edition, 13. 
c Conflate ' readings, 128. 
Conformity, alterations to produce, 

26, 28. 
Confusion of letters, 22. 
Conjectural emendation, 2. 
Conquest, Mohammedan, of Egypt 

and Syria, 102. 
Constantine, 44, 100. 
Constantinople, 100, 101, 102. 
Coptic Language, 67. 
Copyists, tendency of, to assimilate 

passages, 26, 91, in. 



INDEX II 



177 



Copyists, tendency of, to supply 
supposed defects, 26, 90, 91. 

to include everything in their 

copy, 107. 

Corrections, evidence derived from, 
55- 

— of unclassical forms, 25. 

— often unintelligent, 19. 

— S. Jerome's, 59, 60. 

— source of error, 20, 29. 
Corredoria, 60. 
Correctors, 19. 

— mode of designating, 33. 

— of Codex X, 45, 142. 

— of Codex B, 49, 50. 
Cureton, Dr., 62. 

Curetonian Syriac Version, 61, 92. 
Cursive MSS., 36, see Minuscules. 
Cyril of Alexandria, 73, 99. 

Date of a MS., arguments for fixing, 
37, 143; 

Dated evidence, amount of, known, 
80. 

Diatessaron, see Tatian. 
Diocletian's persecutions, 100. 
SiopOovv, diopOojTTjs, 19, 45. 
Dittography, 22. 

Dogmatic alterations of the Text, 

20, 27, 28. 
Doubling of letters, &c, 24, 29. 
Doxology of the Lord's Prayer, 28. 

Editio Regia, 15. 
Eichhorn, 84. 
Elision, 22. 
Elzevir, 15. 

English Version, readings adopted 

in the, 15^. 
Epistles, modes of dividing the, 41. 
Erasmus, his editions, 14. 

— interpolations by, 14. 

— MSS. used by, 14. 
Errors, of sight, 20, 21, 22. 

— of sound or hearing, 20, 23, 24. 

— of memory, 20, 24. 

— Prof. Madvig's classification of, 29. 

— tendency to accumulate, 30. 
European (Latin) text, 58. 
Eusebius of Csesarea, 38, 39, 42, 44, 

64, 73, 76, 128, 135. 



Euthalius, 38, 42, 147. 

Euthymius, 133. 

Evangelia, 32. 

Evangelistaria, 32. 

Evidence, canons of external, 106. 

— canons of internal, 107, &c. 

— dated, amount of, 80. 

— sources of, 1. 

Ferrar group, the, 18. 
Friderico-Augustanus Codex, 19, 43. 

141. 
Froben, 13. 

Fuldensis Codex, 61, T59. 

Gallican Psalter, the, 56. 
Genealogy of documents, 111. 
' Genuine,' 115/2. 

Glosses, a source of error, 20, 24, 29. 
Gospels, the, systems of divisions of, 
38. 

— Western order of, 34, 144. 
Gothic Version, the, 69. 
Grseco-Latin codices, 84. 

Greek Testament, first printed, 13. 

— first published, 14. 
Gregory, Dr. C. R., 31. 
Griesbach, 84, 108. 

Groups of copies, characteristics of. 
82. 

— how formed, 30. 

— internal evidence of, 1 1 1 . 

— number of, 84, 85. 

— relation of, to the true Text, 87, 
&c. 

Harkel, Thomas of, 65. 
Harkleian Version, 65. 

— how quoted, 65. 

Hebrews, the Epistle to the, sec- 
tions of, 41. 

— position of, 41, 46. 
Hernias, the Shepherd of, 43, 47. 
Hesychius, 134. 

Hierapolis, 65. 
Homoioteleuton, 21, 29, 45. 
Hort, Dr., 2, 7, 74, 95. 
Hug, 84. 

'Irjffovs Xpioros, 6, in the New Testa- 
ment, 76. 
Ignatius, 119. 



N 



178 



INDEX II 



Inflexion, peculiarities of, 82. 
Initial letters, 46, 51, 144. 
Insertion of similar letters, 22. 
Internal evidence, of Groups, in. 

— of Readings, 112. 
Interpolations, an occasional source 

of evidence, 92. 

— in Codex Bezae, &c, 145. 
Intrinsic evidence, 95. 

— probability, 112. 
Irenseus, how quoted, 168. 
Itacisms, 23. 

— of Codd. N and B, 52. 
Itala Versio, 57-59. 

Jerome, his revision, 59, 75. 
Jerusalem-Syriac Version, 66. 
Justin Martyr, 74 n. 

Karkaphensian Version, 66, 67. 
KecpaXaia, of the Gospels, 40. 

— of the Acts and Epistles, 42. 

— of the Apocalypse, 42. 
Kuenen and Cobet's edition of Cod. 

B, 20, 25, 48. 

Lachmann, 84. 
Lake, n. 

Latin group of MSS., 84. 

Lectio prceferatur brevior, 25, 107. 

Lectionaries, 27, 34. 

Lectioni proclivi prcestat ardua, 1 08. 

Letters, similar, confused, 22, 29. 

omitted or inserted, 22, 29. 

— transposed, 22, 29. 
Liturgical insertions, 20, 27, 29. 
Xoyoi of the Apocalypse, 42. 
Lord's Prayer, the, 92. 

— the doxology of, 28. 
Lucian, 99. 

Madvig, Professor, 29. 
Manuscripts, a source of evidence, 1. 

— dates of, 78. 

— different, denoted by the same 
letter, 32. 

— gross total number of, 31. 

— groups of, 83. 

— mode of copying, 18. 

— mode of determining the dates of, 
37, 46. 



Manuscripts, palaeographic charac- 
teristics of, 36. 

— the same denoted by different 
letters or numerals, 32. 

Marcion, 11, 74 n., 168. 
Massoretic text, the, 6. 
Memory, errors of, 20, 24. 
Memphitic Version, see Bohairic. 
Milan, Edict of, 100. 
Mill, 83. 

Miller, Rev. E., 2, 4, 5. 
Minuscules, 31, 32, 36. 
Mohammedan conquest of Egypt 
and Syria, 102. 

Nestle, 2, 8, 107. 
Nicholson, Mr., 118. 

Octateuch Septuagint, 146. 
Old Latin, chief Codices of, 61. 
Omission of similar letters, 22. 
Origen, 74, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 
126. 

Pamphilus, 19, 147. 

Papyrus rolls, 44. 

Parallel passages, 26. 

trap<nr\i}Gia, to, 39. 

Particles accidentally varied, 24. 

Paul, S., speech of, to the Ephesian 

elders, 129. 
Permutation of letters, 29. 
Peshitto Syriac Version, the, 63-4. 

— Canon of, 64. 
Philoxenian Version, the, 65. 
Philoxenus, 65. 

Polycarp, Chorepiscopus of Hiera- 

polis, 65. 
Praxapostoli, 32. 
Pre-Syrian readings, 85. 
Probability, 105. 

Prcclivi lectioni prtzstat ardua, 108. 
Profession of Faith, the Baptismal, 
28. 

Punctuation, rare in early MSS., 37. 

— of Cod. A, 142. 

— of Cod. B, 51, 52. 

Quaterniones , 44, 49. 
Qziiniones, 49. 

Quotations, a source of evidence, 1, 
72 seq. 



INDEX II 



179 



Quotations, altered by transcribers, 
26, 72, 73. 

— value of, 75. 

Rabbulas, Bp. of Edessa, 63. 

Recensions, 99. 

Regia, Editio, 15. 

Ridley, Dr. Gloucester, 64, 66. 

Sahidic Version, the, 68. 
Salmon, Dr., 8. 
Samaritan Pentateuch, the, 6. 
Scholz, 84. 
Scriptorium, 18. 

Scrivener, Dr., 2, 34, 69, 96, 117, 
119 n. 

Sections, 1 Ammonian, 5 38-40. 
Similar letters confused, omitted, or 

inserted, 22, 23. 
Sinaitic Syriac, the, 63, 88, 97. 
Sinaiticus, Cod., 20, 31, 43 seq. 

— its connection with Cod. B, 51-53. 
Sinopensis, 153. 

Sixtine Vulgate, 60. 

Sources of evidence for the true 

text, 1. 
Spain, 115. 

Spelling, peculiarities of, 82. 
Stephen, 15. 
gti X oi, 37, 38, 147. 
Stichometry, 37. 
Subjective arguments, 111. 
Subscriptions to the Books, 19, 51, 

HZ, M4- 
Synonymous words substituted, 24. 
Syntax, peculiarities of, 84. 
Syrian type of text, 95, 99, 101. 

— group of MSS., 85, 98. 

— readings, 95, 96, 101, 102. 
Syro-Latin text, 87, 92 n. 

Tatian's Diatessaron, 11, 26,62, 170. 
Tattam, Archdeacon, 62. 
reAos, marking the end of an eccle- 
siastical Lection, 27, 134. 
Temiones, 49. 

Text, liability of, to depreciation, 17, 
30. 

— test of the antiquity of a, 97. 
Textus Receptus, critical value of, 

15, 16. 



" Textus Receptus, origin of the name, 
15- 

Thebaic Version, see Sahidic. 
Theodulph, 60. 

Tischendorf, 43, 47, 77, 84, 109, 
no, 130. 

Titles of the Books of the New Tes- 
tament, simplicity of, in early 
MSS., 46, 143. 

t'itXoi, 40, 46, 142. 

Traditional text, the, 3, 4, 8, 99. 

Transcriptional evidence, 95. 

— probability, 112. 
Transcriptions, successive, 29. 
Transposition of letters, 22. 
Tregelles, Dr., 26, 28, 77, 94, 109, 

119 11., 127, 130. 
Trench, Archbishop, 115^. 
rpicraa teal Terpacroa, 44 n. 

Ulfilas, 69. 

Unanimity of MSS. imaginary, 82. 
Uncial MSS., how denominated, 31, 
32. 

Unclassical forms, 25, 82. 

Various readings, the sources of, 

classified, 20. 
Vaticanus Codex, 19, 40, 47 seq. 

— connection of, with Cod. 51-53. 

— facsimile edition of, 48. 
Vera exemplaria, 126. 
Verbal dissidences, no. 
Versions, a source of evidence, 1, 

54-56. 

Vetus Latina Version, codices of, 61. 

— critical use of, 60. 

— origin of, 56. 

Victor of Antioch, 134, 138. 
Vulgate, the critical use of, 60. 

— of S. Jerome, 59. 

— Sixtine and Clementine, 60. 

Walton's Polyglott, 70. 

Westcott and Hort, Drs., 2. 7, 8, 

77, 85, in, 118, i24»., 131. 
Western group of MSS., 7, 84, 85, &c. 

— order of the Gospels, 34, 144. 
Western text, the, 11, 85, 98. 
Wiseman, Cardinal, 57. 

Ximenes, Cardinal, 13. 



OXFORD 

PRINTED AT THE CLARENDON PRESS 
BY HORACE HART, M.A. 
PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY 



SEP 8 1902 



